Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — VIETNAM

Dr. David Kerr: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will dissociate Great Britain from the use of chemical and biological warfare by the United States of America in Vietnam.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): I am not aware of any American activity in this field to warrant our dissociation.

Dr. Kerr: Would my right hon. Friend inform those who advise him that one Australian officer has died during a gas attack in Vietnam and that the use of defoliants in Vietnam cannot be categorised as other than the use of chemical and biological warfare, warfare which is not against military targets—although the excuse is used that to defoliate exposes guerillas—but which is, in fact, occasioning starvation among an already starving population?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend has already given one of the most important reasons for the use of defoliants; and if this stops ambush raids, it is saving life. It is inevitable in the operations of war that there will be an interdiction of food supplies. I am not aware of any use of lethal gases.

Mr. Dewar: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has received, as Co-Chairman of the Geneva Agreement, about the willingness of the Government of North Vietnam to accept the good offices of the United Nations, with a view to the early cessation of hostilities.

Mr. M. Stewart: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) on 1st April, North Vietnam has consistently rejected any suggestion that the United Nations should concern themselves with the affairs of Vietnam; and I regret to say that I have received no information of the nature described in this Question.—[Vol. 762, c. 2.]

Mr. Dewar: While this Question, perhaps fortunately, has been out-dated by recent more hopeful developments, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that at the United Nations we still have a very useful rôle to play in getting an ultimate settlement?

Mr. Stewart: Certainly. As I think the House knows, the United States has long been willing to submit the Vietnam question to the United Nations and to keep


the Security Council informed of their actions.

Dr. John Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend say whether, with his co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference, he has been in touch with the three Control Commission members to ensure that if required they are prepared to play their part in reaching a settlement?

Mr. Stewart: I have from time to time been in touch with the International Control Commission members. What part they and the co-Chairmen may have to play is, I think, one of the things we may know more about in future.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on British policy in relation to the proposed peace talks on Vietnam.

Mr. M. Stewart: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my Reply to the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) on 13th May.—[Vol. 764, c. 180.]

Mr. St. John-Stevas: In view of the chaos in France, will the right hon. Gentleman issue an immediate invitation to the participants in the Vietnam talks to move their talks to London where, thanks to the Parliamentary system, order can be assured?

Mr. Stewart: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but I think not.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Can my right hon. Friend say whether Mr. Harriman was correctly reported as saying in a public statement that the N.L.F. could have no share in the future Government of South Vietnam? If so, will my right hon. Friend represent to the United States Government that many people will feel it difficult to believe that they are seriously interested in peace if they stick to this point of view?

Mr. Stewart: I should like to check that report before commenting. I do not think that it would be wise for me at present to make public statements on the attitude of either side.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA

Dr. David Kerr: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what diplomatic initiatives he has taken in non-

Commonwealth countries to secure adherence to the United Nations resolution on sanctions against Rhodesia.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Frederick Mulley): As has been made clear on many occasions in the House, Her Majesty's Government are in regular touch with other Governments, including non-Commonwealth countries, about the implementation of the Security Council resolution on sanctions.

Dr. Kerr: Since being in touch with countries is not the same as bringing diplomatic pressure to bear on them, may I ask my right hon. Friend to appreciate that what is happening over the breaking of sanctions—not the least alarming report of which came over the weekend from Germany—is causing us a certain amount of despondency at the failure of the Government to take the necessary initiatives with other countries?

Mr. Mulley: Whatever my hon. Friend may think about the course of our communications, one thing is certain and that is that they would be of no value if they were not confidential. On the broad question of the implementation of sanctions, it is, of course, a matter for the Security Council to determine whether members of the United Nations are in breach of their obligations under Article 25.

Mr. Ridsdale: What is the attitude of the Japanese Government to sanctions? Is it not a fact that they are very sceptical of this policy succeeding? When will Her Majesty's Government face the reality of the situation and realise that this policy is a very unrealistic one and is not getting the support of some Asiatic countries?

Mr. Mulley: On the contrary. There is every evidence that a number of African and Asiatic countries want further sanctions to those now proposed. As I have already said, it is a mistake to think that it is our responsibility, or that we have the means, to enforce sanctions resolutions of the Security Council. This is a matter for the U.N. and very recently the matter was reviewed there, when it was shown that the majority of members are carrying out the mandatory resolution concerned.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Would my right hon. Friend believe, in the bowels of Christ, that he is wrong about private conversations? Will he try, instead, public debate in the Security Council, calling on Governments to ensure that their nationals do not violate the sanctions and, at the same time, show the evidence we have that this has happened; and then he would get a real result?

Mr. Mulley: My reference to confidential discussions was on the basis of representations between one Government and another. There have been many public discussions in the Security Council and, as my hon. Friend reported to the House on 24th April, one is now going on about our proposal for further sanctions.

Oral Answers to Questions — OUTER SPACE TREATY

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the Outer Space Assistance Treaty which he recently signed.

Mr. Mulley: The Agreement on the Rescue and Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space stems directly from the United Nations Outer Space Treaty which came into force on 10th October, 1967. The Agreement is both of value in itself and as an example of international co-operation. Her Majesty's Government, who are one of the three depository powers, signed the Agreement on 22nd April.

Mr. Hooley: While this is a modest and useful advance in international co-operation, may I ask my right hon. Friend what contribution Britain will be able to make in the rescue of astronauts and how many countries are now signatories to this Treaty?

Mr. Mulley: To answer the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, 56 States had, by the middle of last week—the latest date for which we have figures—signed the Treaty. To answer the first part of his supplementary question, about what part we can play, that depends very much on where the emergency landings of astronauts

take place. The purpose of the Treaty is to get an international procedure so that the maximum assistance can be given and the country concerned notified as early as possible; and, of course, the United Nations Secretary-General would be notified.

Oral Answers to Questions — REFUGEES (UNITED NATIONS PROTOCOL)

Mr. Archer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he intends to accede to the United Nations Protocol on the Status of Refugees.

Mr. Mulley: Shortly, we hope, and in any event before the end of Human Rights Year.

Mr. Archer: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but would he accept that merely sending food to refugee camps touches only the fringe of the problem; and that every month during which these people remain in the camps is a very wretched month out of their lives?

Mr. Mulley: I agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments, but the delay in the implementation of the Convention does not affect that issue. It extends the date during which these people would be classified as refugees. But we hope very soon to sign. The delay on our part has been due to the need to consult all the dependent territories which would be covered as the result of our signature.

Oral Answers to Questions — MIDDLE EAST (UNITED KINGDOM EMBASSIES)

Mr. Dewar: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with what countries claims remain outstanding for compensation for damage to United Kingdom embassies during the Middle East crisis last summer.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. William Rodgers): A claim has been presented to Kuwait and claims will be presented to the Lebanon, Libya, the U.A.R., Iraq and Syria as soon as possible.

Mr. Dewar: Can my hon. Friend explain why there have been these very long delays in these countries and various


other countries whilst Tunisia, for instance, settled very promptly, when in all cases the claims are of comparatively minor financial importance?

Mr. Rodgers: We must all regret the delay. It is partly due to the fact that there has been an absence of diplomatic relations between Britain and several of these countries, and also real difficulties in assessing the damage which was incurred.

Mr. Fortescue: Will the Under-Secretary of State tell the House whether any claim was made or compensation offered in respect of the aeroplane of our military attache in Jordan which was destroyed on the ground at Amman airfield by the Israeli Air Force?

Mr. Rodgers: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — JERUSALEM (MILITARY PARADE)

Mr. Walters: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action was taken by Her Majesty's Government in the United Nations Security Council on the resolution regarding the decision by Israel to proceed with a military parade through Jerusalem.

Mr. M. Stewart: Her Majesty's Government made their disapproval of this parade quite clear by voting for the Security Council Resolutions of 27th April and 2nd May.

Mr. Walters: Is not a militaristic display of this kind in a city that does not belong to Israel to be thoroughly deplored?

Mr. Stewart: I think my first Answer made that clear.

Sir B. Janner: Would my right hon. Friend consider why, when Jordan violated all the rules of decency in that part of Jerusalem which she had annexed, the Security Council did not take a similar step in respect of Jordan?

Mr. Stewart: I would agree that this matter of the parade in Jerusalem is only one aspect of a very great problem in which there is a great deal to be said on both sides. The solution of the problem depends upon the removal on both sides of a great weight of suspicion. We deplore this particular action because it was liable

to give colour and weight to these suspicions.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Would the Foreign Secretary instruct his representative not to indulge in the passing of totally absurd resolutions which will never be carried out?

Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. I do not believe that if we treat the United Nations in that way we shall get the growth in the rule of law which is essential in the long run if world peace is to be preserved.

Oral Answers to Questions — MIDDLE EAST

Mr. Walters: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest situation in the Middle East.

Viscount Lambton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the position in the Middle East.

Mr. M. Stewart: Her Majesty's Government have been pleased to note that the Special Representative of the Secretary-General in the Middle East, Dr. Jarring, has secured the agreement of the three principal parties to continue his current contacts with them in New York. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to make a further statement at this juncture.

Mr. Walters: Should the Jarring mission fail, have the Government any alternative proposals for reaching a settlement? For instance, do they have a view about the proposals mentioned in The Times of 17th May, which envisaged temporary international custodianship of those parts of Palestine, including Jerusalem, which have been occupied by Israel after the June war?

Mr. Stewart: We have considered this proposal and other proposals, and what line of action might be necessary if Dr. Jarring's mission should not be successful. Fortunately, at present this is hypothetical.

Viscount Lambton: Will the Foreign Secretary comment on the continued Russian infiltration in the Middle East, including the large-scale supply of arms to the Yemen and the proposed introduction of a naval base in the Gulf?

Mr. Stewart: I do not think that comment arises out of this Question.

Mr. Henig: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that in the long term the only real hope for peace must lie in direct negotiations between the two sides rather than by mediation by Dr. Jarring or anyone else? Will the Government, therefore, do all in their power to press on countries in the Middle East the importance of taking at least the step of starting some form of negotiation between themselves?

Mr. Stewart: I think that my hon. Friend will agree that the objective he has in mind could not be reached immediately. I believe that what Dr. Jarring is now doing could be helpful to that end. At this moment, therefore, I have taken the view that the best service we can render is to urge on the parties concerned that they should give all support to Dr. Jarring's work. Of course, further steps would be necessary later on.

Sir Dingle Foot: Will my right hon. Friend reiterate the Government's view, expressed at the United Nations by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown), that there can be no satisfactory settlement without a withdrawal from the territories which were occupied last summer?

Mr. Stewart: I would agree with that view, but the danger of stopping short of agreement with that is that the United Nations resolution referred to a good many other things besides withdrawal. What we want, I take it, is a settlement in which Israel and her neighbours can live side by side with such relations between them as ought to exist between fellow members of the United Nations. That was also involved in the United Nations resolution.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUEZ CANAL (DETAINED SHIPS)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further action is being taken in order to free British vessels held up in the Suez Canal.

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the British ships detained in the Suez Canal.

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if he will make a direct approach to the authorities in Egypt and Israel with a view to obtaining the release of the four British ships at present detained in the Suez Canal.

Mr. M. Stewart: Her Majesty's Government are in touch with the Governments of the United Arab Republic and Israel, with other ship-owning countries, and with the United Nations. We are doing all we can to get arrangements made for the release of the ships, but I cannot forecast when we shall see practical results.

Mr. Shinwell: My right hon. Friend will agree that these talks have been going on for a very long time. Is any progress being made? Is any pressure being brought to bear on the United Arab Republic? Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Government now find themselves in a hopeless and helpless position, and does not that also apply to the United Nations?

Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. I think that my right hon. Friend is taking too pessimistic a view here. The reason for the difficulties is that this is not an isolated problem: it is part of the whole Arab-Israel problem. We have been in touch with the Government of the United Arab Republic and, indeed, with all those who are concerned.

Mr. Marten: What is the cost to the British economy in the first quarter of this year of these blocked ships? As they have now been there a year, can the Foreign Secretary say which of the two Powers would object if a United Nations force tried to get the ships out by unblocking the south of the Canal?

Mr. Stewart: To a proposal for a United Nations force I do not think that there would at present be agreement by either party. As I say, we have to regard the solution of this matter as part of the solution on the whole Arab-Israel question. I think that the losses at present to our economy are in the neighbourhood of £20 million a month.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Since it may be a matter of years before the Suez Canal is opened, if ever, will not the right hon. Gentleman consider starting a special


"operation-release" to get our four ships out, even if they prove the last to leave.

Mr. Stewart: Among the possibilities we have examined is one for getting out the ships that are at present there, which would be a different operation from completely clearing the Canal. There are possibilities there on which we are still engaged.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Would my right hon. Friend agree that this is not just a question to be brought before the United Arab Republic, but that both the United Arab Republic and Israel have some responsibility for the fact that the ships are still there?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. I have very recently been in touch with both Governments about this matter.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Foreign Secretary said that this is not a problem that can be isolated, but might it not be isolated? Was not there at one time a plan, with which it seemed that the Egyptians and the Israelis would agree, of a dredging operation to the south, which is the natural outlet?

Mr. Stewart: I should have said that an operation to get out the ships at present there could be isolated from the rest of the problem. The actual complete opening of the Canal is bound up with the whole problem. As I say, with regard to the smaller question, there are possibilities on which we are now engaged.

Mr. J. T. Price: If we are held to ransom in any way by the Egyptian authorities in this matter—and is it not a fact that the Egyptians are looking to this country to provide them with a massive loan—what is the extent of the terms we are being asked to meet for the release of British ships?

Mr. Stewart: I do not think I can answer that question. I do not think it should be put entirely in that way. There will be need for help from more than the Egyptians if this is to be solved.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL TREATY ORGANISATION (LONDON MEETING)

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the

outcome of the Central Treaty Organisation meeting held in London in April.

Mr. M. Stewart: The Council of Ministers of the Central Treaty Organisation met in London on 23rd and 24th April. There was a useful exchange of views, both on matters directly affecting the Central Treaty Organisation region, and on wider international matters and general agreement on the policy the Central Treaty Organisation should follow.

Mr. Williams: Would my right hon. Friend agree that since we are withdrawing from the Persian Gulf and the Far East there seems little point in remaining in membership of C.E.N.T.O., with so many conflicting interests?

Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. It is true of course that the countries which compose C.E.N.T.O. have each a wide range of interests, but it is generally understood that it is not the purpose of C.E.N.T.O. to deal with all those problems. It has the limited but useful objective of giving stability and confidence to the regional countries and promoting economic development among them.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Since one of the purposes of C.E.N.T.O. is to safeguard its member nations against possible Soviet aggression, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the brush-off which he gave to my noble friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) when he asked him to comment about the presence of the Soviet Navy in the Gulf? Surely that is important?

Mr. Stewart: I did not say it was unimportant, but I did not think it arose out of the Question on which it was asked.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SUBJECTS (REPATRIATION)

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many British citizens were stranded abroad and repatriated through the action of British Consuls during 1967.

Mr. William Rodgers: 2,398.

Mr. Williams: Would my hon. Friend agree that it is scandalous that constituents of mine, Mr. and Mrs. Bossley,


who found themselves involved in the Middle East war last June had to pay £242 of their own money to bring themselves home? Would he agree that there should be some responsibility on the carriers at least to refund part of the return fare and not to escape responsibility entirely?

Mr. Rodgers: The responsibility of the Government in this respect is to make sure that no undue burden shall fall on the taxpayer, whatever the unhappy circumstances anyone finds himself in. The point raised by my hon. Friend is a different one and I think that he might find it worth while to pursue it.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH FORCES (ROAD BUILDING OPERATIONS)

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the successful road building operations for civilian purposes of British troops in Thailand, carried out in co-operation with the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Overseas Development, he will seek to ensure that comparable teams are available for similar aid elsewhere.

Mr. William Rodgers: Yes, Sir. Army teams are carrying out similar projects in the British Virgin Islands and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. A further party is leaving shortly for Malta.
Requests for help of this nature will continue to be dealt with sympathetically within the limitations of the Army's strategic commitments and training programme.

Mr. Lyon: Are the requests dealt with through the Minister of Overseas Development or the Ministry of Defence? Would it not be welcome if schemes of this kind could be expanded at a time when the ceiling for overseas aid has been fixed for the next two years?

Mr. Rodgers: We have to consider here the total ceiling for aid of any kind whatever agency is used, but it is certainly the case that there is full co-ordination of the Foreign Office with the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Overseas Development to ensure that where a job is to be done it is done in the quickest and most effective way.

Sir Frank Pearson: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that the use of British Forces for this purpose can be only limited and that if we carry it too far we will soon find that we have no British troops left?

Mr. Rodgers: I think there is some misunderstanding of the attitude of the Army to this sort of work. I want to make clear that it has been widely welcomed by the Army and the road building operation in Thailand has been a most useful training exercise.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH YEMEN

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the negotiations with South Yemen.

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent talks with the Government of South Yemen.

Mr. M. Stewart: I have nothing to add to the reply my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs gave to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) on 13th May.—[Vol. 764, c. 182–3.]

Mr. Marten: Does the Minister recall that a number of British officials were dismissed by the South Yemen Government on the occasion when the British Ambassador asked our pilots not to fly over the South Yemen frontiers? This was not in the Answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker). What is the position about compensation for the British officials who were dismissed?

Mr. Stewart: The interim settlement we made and the further settlement we intended to make carried certain obligations on the Aden Government of the kind which the hon. Member and others have mentioned.

Mr. Wood: Although there is a further Question later on the Order Paper about the position of individuals in South Yemen, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has anything further to say now about the security of British installations and property in the Republic?

Mr. Stewart: The South Yemen Government said at the time when the negotiations were broken off that they wished their relations with this country to remain normal. I believe that is so and I do not think there is ground for anxiety on the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what has been the result of his consideration of the effect on the negotiations with South Yemen of the prosecution and sentencing to death, or to long terms of imprisonment, by that Government of former servants and members of the Aden Administration because of their service to, and work for the former British Administration; and whether he will refuse help of any sort until a satisfactory reply is received.

Mr. M. Stewart: The political trials were one of the factors taken into account in deciding on the timing and content of the recent negotiations on aid. As the negotiations ended without any agreement the question of future aid does not now arise.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that while people are being persecuted and prosecuted for the offence of having served our own regime it would be intolerable to give any aid or comfort to such a regime as the present?

Mr. Stewart: We were engaged in negotiations to give some aid beyond the interim aid. We took into account the facts—and they are serious and deplorable facts—to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. We do not believe, for reasons which have been given to the House, that, for that cause, we should not have made any offer at all. However, the offer was in my judgment unwisely rejected and the question of aid therefore now does not arise at all.

Mr. Paget: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, so long as we remain patently impotent to protect our friends, it is not much use having a fleet of Polaris submarines?

Mr. Stewart: I am not quite sure of the moral my hon. and learned Friend is endeavouring to draw from that. I make no bones about the fact that we

were not able to give those who had been friendly to us the protection we should have done, but in consequence of representations we made—I think that it was in large measure due to them—the political trials came to an end and no death sentences were carried out.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As there is no question of any further negotiations or further aid, can the Foreign Secretary say whether Her Majesty's Government now assume responsibility for pensions to some of these people, who are very deserving and were being paid by Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Stewart: These are obligations which are accepted by the South Yemen Government and are part of the Geneva Agreement governing interim aid, and they are not affected by the fact that the negotiations for further aid have not come to any conclusion.

Sir G. Nabarro: Now that the Foreign Secretary states that no further aid will be given in any circumstances, what steps does he propose to take in response to the threat of the South Yemen Government to nationalise the British oil refinery without compensation?

Mr. Stewart: That is a hypothetical question. I stated earlier that the attitude of the South Yemen Government is that they wish relations between our two countries to be normal.

Oral Answers to Questions — GIBRALTAR

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are his plans to alleviate Spanish pressure on Gibraltar.

Mr. William Rodgers: As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs will be visiting Gibraltar from 22nd to 24th May to continue discussions with Gibraltar Ministers on this and other questions.

Mr. Tilney: As most sensible people would like to see a friendly Spain and expansion of trade between Gibraltarians and Spaniards, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the balance of trade, taking tourist revenue into account, is very much in favour of Spain at present?

Mr. Rodgers: Yes. That is certainly one of the considerations we have in mind.

Sir G. de Freitas: Will my hon. Friend draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the all-party Motion on Gibraltar based on a Motion before the Assembly of the Council of Europe and signed by all parties from nearly all the national delegations?

Mr. Rodgers: I think the Leader of the House is fully aware of that most important Motion.

Mr. John Lee: If the Spanish Government persist in harassing Gibraltar, will the Foreign Office do something about making an inventory of Spanish assets in this country with a view to pressure on them by way of retaliation?

Mr. Rodgers: Without necessarily saying that the method suggested by my hon. Friend would be a practical and desirable one, certainly we do not rule out the possibility of retaliation, although we are also considering positive help to the people of Gibraltar to sustain them in their difficult times.

Oral Answers to Questions — GUATEMALA (DRAFT TREATY)

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why no copy of the annex to the draft treaty between Great Britain and the Republic of Guatemala was deposited in the Library of the House of Commons on 29th April 1968; and whether he will ensure that the British text of the final treaty is in English.

Mr. William Rodgers: We received the annex from the mediator some time after the draft treaty, but copies have now been placed in the Library of the House. I am sure that the language of any final treaty will avoid any infelicities which the hon. Member finds in the present draft.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that, before the Foreign Secretary claims that proposals have been put before the House in the Library, the proposals do exist in this country? It is not good enough to offer that sort of thing to the House when no one can see what the full proposals of the mediator are.

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman is being very unreasonable. We placed the draft treaty in the Library as soon as it was available. The annex was not available—that was not our responsibility— but we placed it there as soon as it was in our hands.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will enter into negotiations with the Republic of Mexico to ensure that dormant Mexican claims to part of the territory of British Honduras do not subsist after the projected treaty between Great Britain and the Republic of Guatemala comes into effect.

Mr. Palmer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a further statement on the Bethuel Webster proposals to make British Honduras subordinate after independence to Guatemala in foreign affairs and defence.

Mr. M. Stewart: We have for long had informal consultations with the Mexican Government regarding British Honduras, and these consultations continue.
In my statement to the House on 29th April, I said that we would study the mediator's proposals in consultation with the Government of British Honduras. That Government have now asked Her Majesty's Government not to accede to the proposed treaty, and this request has been unanimously endorsed by the House of Representatives. We have consistently made clear that the dispute with Guatemala would not be settled on a basis which was not in accordance with the wishes of British Honduras.—[Vol. 763, c. 798.]

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the Foreign Secretary ensure in any future negotiations that the result must be complete independence for British Honduras, not economic domination by Guatemala, and will he note that, unless this is achieved, the old claims of Mexico to the northern portion of British Honduras remain subject to revival?

Mr. Stewart: The Mexican Government have stated that they have no territorial ambitions in British Honduras. On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I repeat what I said at the end of my Answer, that we have consistently made clear that the dispute would not be settled except on a basis acceptable to British Honduras.

Mr. Henig: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the recent Parliamentary delegation to British Honduras found a unanimous sentiment in that country that the only danger to its defence would come from Guatemala? That being so, what on earth is the good of proposing a defence pact between British Honduras and Guatemala?

Mr. Stewart: In view of the request from British Honduras that we should not accede to the treaty, and the British Government's view on the whole matter which I have just stated, that is a question which does not now arise.

Viscount Lambton: Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that he is right in stating that Mexico has declared that it has no claim on any part of British Honduras? Has it not said that it has no claim so long as British Honduras remains attached to the United Kingdom and did it not say that it would not make a claim if British Honduras became attached to Guatemala, but it has never said that it had no claim if British Honduras itself remained independent?

Mr. Stewart: As I understand it, the Mexican Government have stated that they have no territorial ambitions in British Honduras.

Mr. Cronin: Bearing in mind the much larger population of Guatemala, the entirely different cultural attitude there and the fact that it is an unstable police State, does my right hon. Friend realise that many of us are surprised that this draft treaty should have been taken so seriously for so long?

Mr. Stewart: It was right that the mediator should do his work. It is to be regretted, I suppose, that he was not able to find a solution acceptable to both parties; but, since the draft treaty is not acceptable to British Honduras, it is not acceptable to the British Government either.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH-EAST ASIA TREATY ORGANSATION (WELLINGTON MEETING).

Mr. Peter Archer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the outcome of the meeting of the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation at Wellington.

Mr. William Rodgers: My right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary attended the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation Council meeting in Wellington on 2nd and 3rd April. The Council noted that, in spite of difficulties, encouraging economic and social progress had been made in the area which had been facilitated by the steady growth of regional co-operation. They also noted our decision to withdraw from Singapore and Malaysia by the end of 1971 and welcomed our assurance that we would continue to contribute to the progress, stability and security of South-East Asia.

Mr. Archer: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but is he aware that information about these matters in the British Press or available in London was minimal? If there is any advantage in our continued membership of the Organisation, will my hon. Friend endeavour to persuade the Organisation to issue fuller documentation?

Mr. Rodgers: I shall certainly take up that point.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: As this was the first meeting of the S.E.A.T.O. Council since the Government's decision to pull out east of Suez, can the hon. Gentleman say whether the S.E.A.T.O. Ministers were pleased by the British Government's action, and will he explain why his right hon. Friend came back and did not feel it right to tell the House of Commons what had transpired at this important meeting?

Mr. Rodgers: Our allies in S.E.A.T.O. fully understood the circumstances which had determined us upon our withdrawal by the end of 1971, and, as I explained, they were reassured when they were told that we intended to play our part in a number of other ways in the Far East in the period after that.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend meant no discourtesy to the House. This has been the first occasion on which an hon. Member has asked for information.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS MISSIONS (PERSONNEL)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what estimate he has made of the likely percentage change in the number of


United Kingdom-based personnel serving in British missions overseas during the course of the current financial year.

Mr. Mulley: The current United Kingdom-based establishment overseas is more than 2 per cent. below that in the last financial year. During the current financial year, there will be further redeployments of United Kingdom-based staff to meet our changing tasks, for example, in giving increased attention to work to promote British exports.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Has the right hon. Gentleman noted that the foreign exchange cost of these services has increased 12 times since before the war? Does he suggest that our responsibilities and influence have increased proportionately over that period? Second, has he noticed that the United States Government are able to announce a 10 per cent. cut in the foreign exchange cost of their foreign service in the course of a single year? Why cannot we do the same?

Mr. Mulley: On the first point, although there has been a large increase in costs since the period to which I referred in my Written Answer on 17th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), to which I assume the hon. Gentleman is referring, he will recall that in that Answer I showed that there are more than double the number of countries in which we have representatives, in addition to the development of big missions at the United Nations and elsewhere.
The broad question of how much one can cut depends on how much waste there is to start with, and I should not like to make an observation about the size of United States overseas representation, but the fact remains, as the hon. Gentleman knows, having been a member of the Service, that our overseas representation is inspected regularly every three years. While we are seeking and shall obtain further reductions in these establishments, we have been primarily engaged in the last year or two in changing people from political to commercial work. I think that that is the wish of the House. It is certainly the wish of British industry that we should do it.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the Government's present policy concerning the British application to join the European Economic Community.

Mr. M. Stewart: I have nothing to add to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) on 1st April.—[Vol. 762, c. 6–7.]

Mr. St. John-Stevas: In view of the dead end which the British application to join the E.E.C. has unfortunately reached, will the Foreign Secretary order a full-scale inquiry into the possibilities of the proposed North Atlantic free trade area?

Mr. Stewart: As the House has been informed, the possibilities of this have already been studied; but I think, to use the hon. Gentleman's phrase, that it would be a dead end.

Mr. Shinwell: In the light of the present state of affairs in France, will my right hon. Friend send a message to President de Gaulle informing him that we are not prepared to enter the European Economic Community until France puts its affairs in order?

Mr. Stewart: No, Sir.

Mr. Turton: Reverting to the right hon. Gentleman's original Answer, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that 82 right hon. and hon. Members of all parties have pressed for a new feasibility study for an open-ended free trade area? As the Prime Minister said that the earlier one was conducted before he made the application, now is the time to have another one, is it not?

Mr. Stewart: I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to warrant the use of time and resources in that manner.

Mr. Blenkinsop: As the situation in France has become a great deal more flexible, would not it be the right moment to take any opportunity that arises to press our desire for association with Western Europe?

Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend used the term "association"; I do not


think that he was using it in the technical sense. Our application is for full membership of the Community. Meanwhile, we are giving particular attention to the Benelux proposals, and would do so to any line of action which would bring us closer to Western Europe and lead directly to our membership of the Community.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will take steps to convene a conference of the Foreign Ministers of the States that are members of the European Economic Community and of those that wish to be, on the lines of the proposals made by the Italian Government on 23rd February, 1968.

Mr. M. Stewart: We welcomed the Italian proposals and are ready to take part in such a conference. At the moment, however, the members of the European Economic Community are still continuing their own discussions and I think we must await the outcome of their next meeting.

Mr. Ridley: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the feeling is growing in Europe that the time is ripe for a British initiative and that we could possibly help to break the European deadlock if the Government were to take the steps leading towards such a conference?

Mr. Stewart: I understand and sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I think at present we should let the members of the E.E.C. continue their own discussions.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The Prime Minister has said that the Government will consider any proposal emanating from the Six—from the Community as a whole— whereas the Foreign Secretary has said that these proposals to be acceptable must lead directly to full membership of the E.E.C. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in this case it is the Prime Minister who is expressing the Government view?

Mr. Stewart: The two propositions are not in conflict. We should want proposals from the Six and should not want them to be a substitute for full membership, which is the objective of our policy.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he

has now taken in reply to the initiative of the Governments of the Benelux States for a regular procedure of consultation between member and candidate states for the European Economic Community.

Mr. M. Stewart: We have made it clear both to the Benelux Governments and to the other Governments concerned that we warmly support this proposal and are ready to play our full part in every channel of consultation open to us.

Mr. Ridley: In view of the paralysis created by France, not only in the Common Market but in France also, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he must begin to put pressure on to get European unity moving again and that this also is another way in which he could help by supporting these proposals?

Mr. Stewart: We have made clear our support of these proposals. The rest of my answer must be the same as that which I gave the hon. Gentleman a few moments ago.

Mr. Henig: In view of my right hon. Friend's initial position—that we are only interested in listening to proposals from the whole of the Six—does not he feel that it is odd for the Government to listen to and, apparently, actively to encourage proposals from the three smallest countries in the E.E.C? Does not this jeopardise our whole European strategy?

Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. I do not think that that is so at all.

Oral Answers to Questions — EASTERN EUROPE

Mr. Biffen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what plans he has to visit Prague, Belgrade, Budapest and Bucharest.

Mr. M. Stewart: As I told the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) on 1st April, I shall, at the invitation of the Governments concerned, be visiting Belgrade in June and Budapest, Sofia and Bucharest in September. I have no plans at present to visit Prague.—[Vol. 762, c. 12–13.]

Mr. Biffen: Do not recent events show how much more beneficial it would be for the Western world if this country rather than France were responding to


the welcome and exciting initiatives being undertaken politically and economically in Eastern Europe? Will he bear in mind that he will have very wide goodwill going with him on the visits he proposes to undertake in Eastern Europe?

Mr. Stewart: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. It has been our policy for some time to have Ministerial exchanges with the countries of Eastern Europe. I visited Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1965, and can now undertake this further group of visits.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be absolutely essential to respond very quickly if Czechoslovakia were to ask for financial assistance? Would he agree to consult other European countries to see whether a loan could be floated if it is requested?

Mr. Stewart: That is going very wide of the Question.

Mr. Marten: When the Foreign Secretary visits these countries, could he particularly discuss with them the proposal which he has just rejected of the Atlantic Free Trade Area, which is open-ended and which these countries could join, when they could never join the Common Market for political reasons? We want unity in Europe, not half unity in Europe.

Mr. Stewart: We discussed on our visits to these countries the possibility of closer links between Eastern and Western Europe. It is only that I am doubtful of the particular channel the hon. Gentleman proposes.

Mr. Heffer: Will the idea of a European security conference be discussed during the visit?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend knows that these exchanges are usually confidential, but I think that one could say that it would be quite likely that that subject would be discussed.

Oral Answers to Questions — NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY

Mr. Whitaker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on disarmament in the General Assembly of the United Nations.

Mr. Mulley: The resumed session of the General Assembly is considering the revised draft of the Non-Proliferation Treaty which was submitted by the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee. I made a statement on 1st May urging the endorsement of the Treaty by the General Assembly with a view to its being opened for signature as soon as possible. The text of this statement is available in the Library and I am sending a copy to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Whitaker: Could my right hon. Friend have a word with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to ask that we might have a debate on this subject, which is of somewhat more importance than most that we talk about in this Chamber?

Mr. Mulley: I should very much welcome a debate, but I am not sure that I have that amount of influence with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: May I press on my right hon. Friend that he should represent to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that the House should have adequate influence to get such a debate?

Mr. Mulley: I am very encouraged by these statements, but I would point out to my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend that in these matters back-benchers often carry more weight than frontbenchers. Perhaps we could do a joint exercise.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST GERMANY (EMERGENCY LAWS)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consultations he has had, or has been asked to have, with the West German Government under the Allied rights of reservation regarding the emergency laws which Bonn wishes to introduce.

Mr. Mulley: As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) on 19th February, the draft emergency legislation now before the Bundestag has been prepared by the Federal Government in the knowledge of the views and requirements of the United States, French and British


Governments. Consultations with the Federal Government have been carried on through Her Majesty's Embassy at Bonn.—[Vol. 759, c. 9–10.]

Mr. Allaun: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the danger involved in these totalitarian, if not Fascist, powers? Will Her Majesty's Government refuse to sanction these dictatorial measures, which are bitterly opposed by the trade unions, the peace movement and the students throughout West Germany?

Mr. Mulley: On my hon. Friend's first point, it is not a matter for us to agree or not to agree. In the Convention of 1955, it was envisaged that there would be emergency powers relating to the protection of the security of our Armed Forces stationed in the Federal Republic, and that is our position. Our powers in other respects will not be affected by the emergency legislation proposed. I think that my hon. Friend grossly exaggerates the character of the proposed emergency laws. Similar contingency legislation is characteristic of most Western democratic countries. I understand that under these laws a two-thirds Parliamentary majority will be required before a state of emergency can be declared, and throughout the emergency a joint commission representing both Houses of the Federal Parliament will be sitting, so that I think my hon. Friend's description of them is less than just.

Mr. Hooley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the logical consequence of the Western Powers' surrendering these residual rights in West Germany must be a formal recognition of East Germany as a separate State?

Mr. Mulley: The powers we are asked to give up in Article 5 of the Bonn Convention on Relations relate only to the stationing of British troops in the Federal Republic. Responsibilities and rights under the other Articles of that Convention are not affected, particularly those under Article 2, so that I cannot agree that the point raised by my hon. Friend arises.

Oral Answers to Questions — COUNCIL OF EUROPE COMMITTEE MEETING (DELEGATE)

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it was with his authority, and at

the expense of his Department, that an ex-delegate to the Council of Europe who was replaced on 30th November, 1967, attended a meeting of a Committee of the Council in Paris on 14th December, 1967.

Mr. William Rodgers: Authority was given at a time when the hon. Member concerned was still a delegate and the Foreign Office was unaware of a change in status until after the expenditure had been incurred.

Mr. Jeger: Is not this an example of the confusion that has occurred in the appointment of delegates to the Council of Europe and their replacement? Is this confusion deliberate, so that the Foreign Office can say that it is done by my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary and the Patronage Secretary can say that it is done by the Foreign Office?

Mr. Rodgers: I am not aware that there is any confusion. Therefore, the question of whether it is deliberate does not arise.

Mr. Webster: Had the matter been cleared by the Credentials Committee of the Council of Europe?

Mr. Rodgers: It did not come within its jurisdiction.

Oral Answers to Questions — COUNCIL OF EUROPE AND WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on how many days the Assemblies of the Council of Europe and the Western European Union met during the session 1967–68; and on how many of these days was the leader of the British delegation present.

Mr. William Rodgers: Twenty-three and 14 respectively.

Mr. Jeger: I asked three questions, and I have had only two answers. May I have an answer to the latter part of the Question? On how many of these days was the leader of the British delegation present?

Mr. Rodgers: I repeat my reply: 23 and 14, respectively.

Mr. Jeger: Is my right hon. Friend surprised that the European delegates to


these Assemblies do not take very seriously the British delegation, or our protestations that we wish to get into Europe, when our representation is so meagre and we take our responsibilities so lightly?

Mr. Rodgers: It has not been my experience that those who attend the Council of Europe think that we take our interests lsss than very seriously. Our delegation as a whole, including the period daring which my hon. Friend was a Member of it, had a very good attendance record and a very high level of participation.

Mr. Webster: Who is the leader of the delegation?

Mr. Rodgers: I am, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY-CZECHOSLOVAKIA (FRONTIER)

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has sent to recent Czechoslovak representations on the matter of the German-Czech frontier; and if he will given an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will maintain the present frontier in negotiations with Germany for a peace treaty.

Mr. Mulley: As my hon. Friend the Minister of State told the House on 8th May, no recent representations have been received from the Czechoslovak Government on this matter. As I informed the House on 24th April, 1967, we regard the Munich Agreement as completely dead and consider that discussions for a peace treaty must start from the basis that Czechoslovak frontiers are not in question.—[Vol. 764, col. 106; and Vol. 745, col. 207–8.]

Mr. Fletcher: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my Question was prompted by the statement, made in a television interview by Adolf von Thadden, leader of the West German neo-Nazis, that the Munich Agreement was still, in his eyes, valid? Can we have from Her Majesty's Government in this House, although preferably in Prague, a clear and categorical statement to the effect that they regard that infamous Agreement as, to use the correct Germanic expression, no more than a disastrous scrap of paper?

Mr. Mulley: I made such a statement over a year ago when I said that we regard the Munich Agreement as completely dead and that the peace treaty negotiations must start on the proviso that the Czechoslovak frontiers are not in question. We cannot put it more clearly than that.

Mr. Molloy: In all these tremendously important matters, in an effort to get genuine and sensible negotiations conducted in all the matters affecting Europe, would it not be a sensible thing for Her Majesty's Government seriously to consider recognising the German Democratic Republic?

Mr. Mulley: That is a different question. We take the view—and it has been generally accepted—that to get all these frontier questions right one must have a peace treaty, and that is contrary to the course my hon. Friend proposes.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH AFRICA (MAJOR-GENERAL VAN DENBERGH)

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the purpose of the recent official visit to his Department of Major-General Hendrik J. van den Bergh, head of the South African security police.

Mr. Mulley: General van den Bergh did not call at the Foreign Office during his recent visit to London.

Mr. Hooley: In that case, will my right hon. Friend be kind enough to say why permission was given for the head of the South African Gestapo to visit this country at all?

Mr. Mulley: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department explained last week that Major-General van den Bergh came as a visitor and stayed with the South African Ambassador. That seems to me a proper ground on which to admit him.

Mr. Sharpies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that certain prosecutions resulting in very long sentences in British courts could not have taken place without the co-operation of the South African police?

Mr. Mulley: That is not within my knowledge, but I have no doubt that their co-operation is of value.

GERMANY (KRUPP COAL AND STEEL INTERESTS)

Mr. Milne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now make a statement about the position with regard to the 1953 order for the disposal of the Krupp coal and steel interests in Germany in the light of the situation that has arisen following the death of Alfred Krupp.

Mr. M. Stewart: Following the death of Alfred Krupp last year, the Krupp concerns have been radically reorganised. The profits of the enterprise, which will now be a joint stock company, are to be paid to a charitable foundation of which the trustees are leading German citizens. All control and ownership has passed out of the hands of the Krupp family. In the changed circumstances of today, these new arrangements finally render the deconcentration order irrelevant. Her Majesty's Government have accordingly felt it right to enter into discussions with the other Governments concerned with a view to terminating the order.

Mr. Milne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be some pleasure at the outcome of the protracted negotiations and discussions which have taken place about the future of the Krupps empire in the last 15 years, and that we hope that the discussions which are to take place with other Governments about the order will underwrite his statement?

Mr. Stewart: I think that this is the right and proper outcome.

SOUTH-WEST AFRICA (UNITED NATIONS COUNCIL)

Mr. Longden: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the total cost to public funds and to the United Nations of the recent journey to Africa of the United Nations Council for South West Africa.

Mr. William Rodgers: This information was given by my hon. Friend

the Minister of State on 13th May in reply to the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison).—[Vol. 764, c. 181.]

Mr. Longden: Is the Minister aware that these people, about a dozen of them, flew all the way to Dar-es-Salaam to discover, after wasting a certain amount of time there, that South Africa would not give them landing permission at Windhoek, that the Secretary-General said, after consulting several United Nations organs, that the matter would take some time to clear up, and that they then had to fly back to New York? Cannot this nonsense be stopped?

Mr. Rodgers: I am aware of the broad circumstances of the visit, but I think it is right that we should honour our obligations under Article 17 of the Charter and not behave as others do in similar circumstances.

Mr. Hooley: Would my hon. Friend make it clear to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden) that it would be more in accord with the interests of Her Majesty's Government to support the detachment of South-West Africa from the control of South Africa rather than to simply connive at the present situation?

Mr. Rodgers: We have made it clear that we are in favour of any action which is clearly practical and positive.

THIRD LONDON AIRPORT SITE (INQUIRY)

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Anthony Crosland): I will, with permission, make a statement on the Government's proposals for the inquiry into the siting of the third London airport.
The form of the inquiry must meet two requirements. On the one hand, this is one of the most important investment and planning decisions which the nation must make in the next decade; this points to an expert, rigorous and systematic study of the many and complex problems involved. At the same time, the decision will profoundly affect the lives of thousands of people living near the chosen site; and this calls for an adequate method of representation of the local interests affected.
We have sought to find a form of inquiry which will meet these two, to some


extent conflicting, needs. We have had discussions with the official Opposition, and I must acknowledge the constructive help which they have given. We have reached a broad agreement.
The Government propose a non-statutory Commission with the following terms of reference:
To inquire into the timing of the need for a four-runway airport to cater for the growth of traffic at existing airports serving the London area, to consider the various alternative sites, and to recommend which site should be selected.
In order to meet the two requirements which I mentioned earlier there will be two sides to the Commission's work. For part of the time, it will sit as a normal committee of inquiry, commissioning research and analysing its findings, sifting expert evidence, forming its own judgments, and finally preparing its report. But there will be other phases of the inquiry when interested parties can be represented by counsel and have the right to cross-examine, both at a series of local inquiries once the possible sites have been reduced to a small number and also before the main Commission itself.
I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a more detailed note of the way in which I envisage that the Commission might set about its task, though I have no wish to impose upon it an unduly rigid procedure.
I shall direct the attention of the Commission to the following matters which are of special relevance to its inquiry:
General planning issues, including population and employment growth, noise, amenity, and effect on agriculture and existing property; aviation issues, including air traffic control and safety; surface access; defence issues; and cost, including the need for cost/benefit analysis.
The Hon. Mr. Justice Roskill has agreed to act as Chairman, and I shall announce the names of the other members as soon as possible.

Mr. Corfield: The Opposition have throughout taken the view that it is highly desirable that the Commission should be in a position to reach a conclusion on the most suitable site without the risk of that site subsequently being rejected by a local planning inquiry. We therefore welcome the approach being adopted by the Government and we also very much welcome the appointment of Mr. Justice Roskill as Chairman, along

with the apparent intention that there should be a senior planning inspector of the Ministry of Housing as a member of the Commission.
For the purpose of clarification, would the right hon. Gentleman answer three questions at this stage? First, although we appreciate that it is not possible for him yet to name the other members of the Commission, can he give some indication of the skills or expertise which he thinks should be represented by the members of the Commission? Secondly, will the Commission be free to take evidence from the Ministry of Defence? Thirdly, can he give some idea of the time-scale that will be involved, how long he thinks all this will take and when he expects the Commission to announce its final conclusion?

Mr. Crosland: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. As to the skills we think should be represented, the kind of membership I have in mind would include perhaps a traffic engineer, an aviation expert, an economist, a businessman, and a regional planner, in addition to the planning inspector to whom the hon. Gentleman referred.
As for the Ministry of Defence, that Department will, no doubt, submit some evidence of a classified character and this will, of course, have to be considered in camera. As to the time likely to be taken by the Commission, I envisage that perhaps up to two years will be needed.

Mr. Newens: Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that ample opportunity will be given to cross-examine all the expert witnesses who will be called, remembering that so often in the past such expert witnesses have given testimony which has afterwards been shown not to be fully acceptable?

Mr. Crosland: I would not necessarily accept what my hon. Friend says about the past. However, I can give him the reassurance he needs about the future. There will be opportunities both at the local inquiry and before the main Commission for interested parties to cross-examine the expert evidence put forward.

Mr. Kirk: I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) in expressing complete


satisfaction at the form of the inquiry. Will it be possible for some of the stages of the inquiry to take place simultaneously? Will this inquiry obviate the need for a public local inquiry at the end of it into the site chosen?

Mr. Crosland: The answer to the first part of that question is "Yes, subject to the views of the Chairman." To answer the second part, I would hope that the answer is "Yes"; in all probability the Government will decide to give planning clearance for the selected site by means of a Special Development Order. There is no obligation to hold an inquiry in respect of such an Order and, after all that is now proposed, I would hope that no further inquiry would be considered necessary.

Mr. Rankin: Would my right hon. Friend agree that in this case the Commission must proceed with the greatest possible measure of speed in view of the fact that Heathrow Airport is becoming less and less possible of development and that Gatwick is in a similar position? Would he agree that speed is necessary because of the increasing air traffic coming to this country?

Mr. Crosland: I completely agree that the greatest possible speed is necessary —that is, the greatest possible speed that is consistent with an inquiry that is not only actually thorough but is also seen by all the parties concerned to be thorough.

Mr. Bessell: In welcoming the right hon. Gentleman's statement on behalf of the Liberal Party, may I ask him when an announcement about the sites under consideration will be made? Can he also say whether the inquiry will consider the new phases of aviation—for example, the development of the Jumbo-jet and the vertical take-off type of aircraft—and ensure that the airport is sited at a place which is reasonably accessible to London?

Mr. Crosland: The answer to the third part of the hon. Gentleman's question will be for the Commission to recommend and not for me to decide in advance. The answer to the second part is "Yes, of course". The answer to the first part is that I would imagine that it would take the Commission between

six and eight months to narrow the very large number of sites that it will initially consider down to the very small number of sites which I hope will then be subject to local inquiries.

Mr. Robert Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in aviation circles there will be a general welcome for his announcement? However, does he really think that this inquiry will be able to complete its work without knowing what is the policy of the Board of Trade for a national airports plan? In other words, does he really believe that the Commission can work in isolation in that respect?

Mr. Crosland: It is generally agreed by all those who have expressed views on this matter that whatever plans one might have for other airports there is almost certainly a need for a third to serve the London area. Therefore, the terms of reference which I have given will, I think, be adequate for the inquiry.

Sir J. Rodgers: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's announcement, but does he realise that the period of two years which he envisages seems to many of us to be much too long? Can he not speed it up? Would he also give a categorical assurance that the site of Stansted will still be included in the deliberations?

Mr. Crosland: On the timetable, I merely wish to guard against over-optimism. If it takes less time, no one will be more delighted than I, but I think that it could take that long, nevertheless. I find it impossible to conceive that Stansted will not be at least one of the candidates seriously considered by the Commission.

Mr. Whitaker: Will the inquiry be able to consider the desirability of eventually moving Heathrow and Gatwick to the east of London, so that the noise of landing aircraft does not disturb the maximum population, as is the case at present?

Mr. Crosland: I have drawn the terms of reference reasonably widely and we must see what the Commission makes of them.

Sir S. McAdden: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that one of the


most canvassed sites is adjacent to my constituency? Would he resist the present pressure to substitute noise transference for noise abatement, since the problem will not be solved merely by transferring it?

Mr. Crosland: I have noticed the reluctance of hon. Members whose constituencies might be affected to grasp this precious prize which is dangled in front of them, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's feelings will be brought to the attention of the Commission.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: May we take it, from one of my right hon. Friend's earlier answers, that the Commission will be able to consider sites which were previously rejected, for example, Black-bushe, which has great climatic and geographical advantages?

Mr. Crosland: Yes, Sir, there are no restrictions on the sites which the Commission can consider.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the timing for a third London airport must to some extent defend on the way in which the traffic can be handled at Heathrow Airport and at Gat wick? Will it be within the terms of reference of the Commission to examine methods of improving the aircraft traffic handling capacity of the two existing airports, since this should be pushed as hard as possible before the country is asked to invest in a new centre of noise and nuisance?

Mr. Crosland: What the hon. Gentleman says is very relevant, but I hope that he will consider that the terms of reference cover his point. The first sentence refers to inquiring into "the timing of the need" for a third four-runway airport, so I think that his point will be covered.

Sir C. Bossom: Will the right hon. Gentleman, at the same time, make a full study of a link-up between central London, by a hovertrain or monorail, and these areas?

Mr. Crosland: This matter interests many hon. Members. We study it fairly continuously. How far it will be for the Commission to study, we had better allow the Commission to decide.

Mr. Hooley: Will the terms of reference entirely exclude the possibility of

siting the airport outside the South-East, since it could gravely aggravate the congestion which it is designed to relieve?

Mr. Crosland: No, Sir, they do not entirely exclude that. It would be open to the Commission to say that there was no need for a third airport, or that it should be indefinitely postponed. This is unlikely in practice, because almost everyone who has discussed this matter is convinced that, some time in the middle 1970s, there will be a need for a third London airport.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Why, since all this will take quite a long time, has it become much less urgent than it was before to make a final selection of the site?

Mr. Crosland: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to the decision to set up an inquiry, which he was kind enough to welcome when I announced it, or to the fact that some weeks elapsed after that earlier statement before I made this statement.
The reason that some delay has occurred is partly that we wished to consult the Opposition, which has, of course, taken time, partly because, in view of the tangled history of this question, it is extraordinarily important to find the right kind of inquiry, and partly because I have consistently taken the view that some delay is to be expected and is well worth incurring if, as a result, we get the right decision and one which everyone admits to be right.

Following is the Note:

Inquiry into Siting of Third London Airport— Constitution, Terms and Reference and Procedure

Constitution of Commission

1. The Government will set up a non-statutory Commission with the following terms of reference: —

To inquire into the timing of the need for a four-runway airport to cater for the growth of traffic at existing airports serving the London area, to consider the various alternative sites, and to recommend which site should be selected.

The Commission will be provided with staff and will be authorised to commission research into matters relevant to its investigation.

The Commission will have its attention directed to the following points which appear to be among the matters particularly relevant to its inquiry:

(a) General planning issues, including population and employment growth, noise,


amenity, and effect on agriculture and existing property;
(b) Aviation issues, including air traffic control and safety;
(c) Surface access;
(d) Defence issues;
(e) Cost including the need for cost/benefit analysis.

Procedure

2. The Government envisage that the Commission will proceed broadly in the following manner, though they do not wish to impose an unduly rigid procedure: —

3. Stage I. At this first stage, the Commission will consider in a broad way the whole range of alternative sites, eliminate those which are clearly unsuitable and identify the small number which require more detailed consideration. The Commission will carry out this process of preliminary selection on the basis of general evidence that may be put to it and of information that it may itself seek. At this stage, there will be no right of representation before the Commission; though the Commission itself will be free to seek oral evidence if this is required to elucidate the matters it is considering.

4. At the end of Stage I, the Commission will announce the sites it wishes to investigate in greater detail, and will, for the purposes of that examination, define the approximate boundaries of the sites in question, and give such other general indications as may be necessary (e.g. flight paths and runway alignments) to enable those living in the localities to understand how they would be affected.

5. Stage II will consist of the hearing of evidence of a local character concerning the short-listed sites. This would probably be undertaken by a senior planning inspector, who would be a member of the Commission, visiting the locality and holding a public local inquiry. Subject to the general reservations mentioned in paragraphs 8–10 below, the interested parties will be entitled to be represented at this stage. As these proceedings will take some time, they will continue while Stages III and IV are going on.

6. Simultaneously, a start will be made with Stage III and the subsequent stages. Stage III

would consist of investigation and research into matters relevant to the choice to be made between the sites (e.g. air traffic patterns, surface transport, noise, regional planning etc.). Some of this work might be undertaken by the Commission and its staff; some commissioned from consultants; and some produced in the form of written evidence by the parties concerned or by bodies having an interest in these matters.

7. Stage IV. The Commission would consider the material produced during the course of Stage III. It will, if necessary, examine the experts who have produced it. If differences of opinion emerge from the expert evidence the Commission will, in the first place, invite those concerned to consult together with a view to reaching agreement.

8. Stage V. The purpose of this stage is to enable the interested parties to test the material produced during the earlier stages. At this stage, they may, by leave of the Commission, be represented by counsel or otherwise. Since the number of interested bodies is potentially large, it is hoped that bodies with similar interests will, wherever possible, be represented by the same counsel.

9. Counsel representing the parties may, by leave of the Commission, lead evidence on relevant matters, and cross-examine witnesses appearing on behalf of other parties or experts responsible for reports which are being taken into consideration by the commission.

10. Before giving leave, the Commission will need to be satisfied that such new evidence is useful and relevant; and that the proposed examination and cross-examination of wit nesses is not repetitious.

11. Finally, the Commission will consider the whole of the evidence, including that produced at the local inquiries. The Commission will then prepare its report and recommendation.

Procedure after the Commission has reported:

12. The Government will decide in the light of the circumstances of the time whether formal planning clearance should be given by way of a Special Development Order or whether they should require the British Airports Authority to make a specific planning application for the recommended site which would be called in for decision by the responsible Ministers, if necessary after a statutory local inquiry.

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Speaker: I have, as is my wont, posted my selection of Amendments to the first three parts of the Bill, up to Amendment No. 66.

New Clause 1.

PUBLICITY IN CONNECTION WITH PREPARATION OF STRUCTURE.

(1) When preparing a structure plan for their area and before finally determining its content for submission to the Minister, the local planning authority shall take such steps as will in their opinion secure—

(a) that adequate publicity is given in their area to the report of the survey under section 1 above and to the matters which they propose to include in the plan;
(b) that persons who may be expected to desire an opportunity of making representations to the authority with respect to those matters are made aware that they are entitled to an opportunity of doing so; and
(c) that such persons are given an adequate opportunity of making such representations;
and the authority shall consider any representations made to them within the prescribed period.

(2) Not later than the submission of a structure plan to the Minister the local planning authority shall make copies of the plan as submitted to the Minister available for inspection at their office and at such other places as may be prescribed, and each copy shall be accompanied by a statement of the time within which objections to the plan may be made to the Minister.

(3) A structure plan submitted by the local planning authority to the Minister for his approval shall be accompanied by a statement containing such particulars, if any, as may be prescribed—

(a) of the steps which the authority have taken to comply with subsection (1) above; and
(b) of the authority's consultations with, and consideration of the views of, other persons with respect to those matters.

(4) If after considering the statement submitted with, and the matters included in, the structure plan and any other information provided by the local planning authority, the Minister is satisfied that the authority have adequately complied with subsection (1) above, he shall proceed to consider whether to approve the structure plan; and if he is not

so satisfied he shall return the plan to the authority and direct them—

(a) to take such further action as he may specify in order better to comply with that subsection; and
(b) after doing so, to resubmit the plan with such modifications, if any, as they then consider appropriate and, if so required by the direction, to do so within a specified period.

(5) Where the Minister returns the structure plan to the local planning authority under subsection (4) above, he shall inform the authority of his reasons for doing so and, if any person has made to him an objection to the plan, shall also inform that person that he has returned the plan.

(6) A local planning authority who are given directions by the Minister under sub section (4) above shall forthwith withdraw the copies of the plan made available for inspection as required by subsection (2) above.

(7) Subsections (2) to (6) of this section shall apply, with the necessary modifications, in relation to a structure plan resubmitted to the Minister in accordance with directions given by him under subsection (4) as they apply in relation to the plan as originally submitted. —[Mr. MacDermot.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.46 p.m.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Niall MacDermot): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This new Clause, together with new Clause 2, replaces Clause 3 so as to meet some points raised in Committee. It was thought that it would be more convenient for the House if we presented Amendments in this form, setting out the Clause afresh, instead of tabling a series of different Amendments. We have taken the opportunity to divide the Clause into two, which will make for greater clarity. The changes made by the new Clause spring entirely from suggestions made by hon. Members in Committee.
The new Clause will amend the old subsection (1) in three ways. First, it is made clear in subsection (1) of the new Clause that the steps required for publicity and participation shall take place during the preparation of the structure plan and before its contents are finally determined in representations for submission to the Minister. We agreed in Committee that the important thing was to see that the public were consulted and could make representations before the local planning authority became committed. That is the intention of this


wording. Of course, it can and will be supplemented as necessary by guidance in circulars.
Second, the words "having an interest in "have been replaced. They had been misunderstood to mean having an interest in property, as if only people with a property interest would have the right to make representations. That meaning would, of course, be far too restrictive and was not intended. The words have, therefore, been altered to make it clear that any persons, whether organisations or individuals, who may be expecting to want to make representations are to be made aware of their opportunity. This Amendment is wide enough to cover both persons resident in the area of the local planning authority and those persons, including amenity or other regional or national societies, who are based outside it.
Subsection (2) merely repeats the existing subsection (2) of Clause 3. Subsection (3) differs from the existing subsection (3) only in that it requires the statement sent to the Minister with the submitted structure plan to deal with all the steps taken to comply with the provisions of subsection (1).
Subsection (4), with the supplementary provisions in subsections (5) to (7) of the new Clause honours my undertaking to bring forward Amendments to give effect to the proposal in an Amendment moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason). First, it requires the Minister to satisfy himself that the local planning authority has complied with the requirements as to publicity and hearing of representations set out in subsection (1) of the new Clause. Only if he is so satisfied may the Minister go on to consider the merits of the submitted plan. He has, of course, to consider the statement submitted and must consider the matters included in the plan, for the nature and the content of the plan will have a bearing on what is adequate by way of arrangements for public participation. He can also take account of any other information provided by the planning authority, and this will enable him to call for further explanations from the authority and to consider them if he is not completely satisfied by the statement itself.
If the Minister is not satisfied that subsection (1) has been adequately complied with he is under the duty to return the plan to the authority and to give clear directions about further action to be taken by the authority to comply with the subsection and about resubmission of the plan afterwards. He has power to set a time limit for resubmission and the authority can resubmit the plan with such modifications as it thinks fit.
Subsection (5) provides that the Minister shall give reasons for returning the plan and notify any person who has made an objection to the plan that he has done so. The return of the plan does not invalidate the objection, but the notification alerts the objector to the possible need to reconsider his objection in the light of any modifications made to the plan for resubmission. Regulations will be made in respect of the validity and consideration of objections to plans which are withdrawn, and these regulations can be made under Clause 11.
Subsection (6) seeks to prevent the confusion which could arise if a plan returned by the Minister were left on deposit and continued to be the focus of attention in preparing objections. Any copies made available for inspection are to be withdrawn when the Minister issues a direction under subsection (4).
Subsection (7) provides that the procedure followed on resubmission of the original plan to the Minister shall be repeated on its resubmission. In this way the authority is required to give a statement of the further steps it has taken and to afford a fresh opportunity for further objections. Indeed, if it were necessary—I hope it will never be—the Minister will have power to return the plan yet again if he is not satisfied that steps have been taken to comply with his objection in an adequate manner.

Mr. Speaker: I have just been reminded that the Amendments listed as selected are Amendments not only to the first three parts of the Bill, but also to Part IV of the Bill.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: With the purpose of this new Clause, namely, to give publicity in connection with the preparation of development plans, we have no quarrel. Indeed, this Clause, and some other of the Amendments on


the Notice Paper, give effect to a number of representations which were made in Committee, although it will be noted that, as the Minister explained matters, there are a number of complexities and technicalities to be considered.
But I want to protest—I have given the Leader of the House notice that I intended to do so this afternoon—at the very short period of time given to Members of this House to consider 52 pages of new Clauses and Amendments to a Bill which, although it is not controversial in a party political sense, raises matters of very great importance to the public and to the many interests concerned.
These new Clauses and Amendments were available in draft last Tuesday to the Opposition, but the rest of the House and the public did not see them until Thursday. This really gives a totally inadequate: amount of time, even for those Members who served on the Standing Committee, to consider in detail what is proposed, and for the rest of the House it is absolutely intolerable to be faced with this sort of situation.
The position is equally difficult for outside bodies concerned, whether it is the Association of Municipal Corporations, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Town and Country Planning Association—and all the other bodies which have a vital interest in these matters—because of the short amount of time afforded by the Government for consideration of these matters. There have been other controversial matters before the House in recent weeks, but this protest must be repeated in regard to this Bill.
There must come a time when this Government, if they will not take any notice of representations by the Opposition, must surely listen to people like Lord Chorley and Lord Goodman. Parliamentary democracy has been absolutely broken down by this Government, and what is happening in the name of reform is that Parliament is being destroyed: if it is desired to set up a dictatorship you call it a people's democracy. It really is intolerable that we should be faced with the need to consider matters of this kind in such inadequate time.
Lord Chorley is reported in the Observer yesterday as speaking of the

harmful effect of the extensive speed of legislation, and saying, with reference to the Companies Bill and the Criminal Justice Bill, that it has reached "almost catastrophic proportions". His arguments were applied specifically to the Companies Bill and the Criminal Justice Bill, but they can be presented again about the Transport Bill.
This Bill, although one about which there is a measure of agreement, raises exactly the same principle about the speed of passing a complex Measure, and I hope that the Government will sooner or later take note of the strong feeling which there is outside as well as inside this House that legislation must be considered properly in the public interest. Now we have 52 pages of Amendments which the Minister has just slapped in front of the House, which is already absolutely drowned in a spate of controversial legislation which the Government persist in trying to force through the House in an absolutely outrageous way.
I had to make that protest, but I do not dissent from the fact that the Ministers immediately concerned with this Bill have tried to make a number of Amendments which we on this side of the House will welcome, perhaps with modifications largely of a technical nature, and ones which, in the ordinary course of events, we could settle without too much difficulty. It may be that the Ministers immediately concerned with the Bill are in no way to blame that they have been obliged to squeeze the Bill into the Parliamentary programme, which is already in such a state of confusion, and I would say, on behalf of my hon. Friends, that we entirely acquit the Minister of State and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary of any attempt to bulldoze legislation through Parliament.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and others of my hon. Friends who served on the Standing Committee will readily acknowledge the way in which the proceedings there were conducted and the good will and helpfulnes which Ministers themselves showed. The responsibility rests on the Leader of the House to see that these things do not happen, and to see that the business of the House is so conducted that these matters can be properly considered.
As I have said, we welcome this new Clause, which represents an attempt to


meet representations made in the Committee and elsewhere. I would say that we have to be careful that in securing publicity of this sort we do not put such a burden on the local authorities as to delay the planning processes, but with that reservation, and knowing that there will be other Clauses and Amendments designed by the Government to ensure continuity of activity in the planning process, I have nothing more to say about the Clause.

Sir Frank Pearson: I have a very short point I wish to raise, but before I do so I want to give the fullest support I can to the protest which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) has made. I speak on behalf of the Parish Councils' Association. This new Clause was put on the Notice Paper last Thursday and there has not been time for me or anybody else to consult the Association about the details of the Clause, and today I am totallv unbriefed about this very important Clause. I hope that every single parish council throughout the country— and I remind the Minister that the parish councils command a vast number of votes —will note that, because of this short notice of this Clause, it is not possible today to represent, as they ought to be represented, the interests of the parish councils, and that is due purely to the fact that the Government have been rushing this legislation through.
Very briefly, I would ask for clarification of one point in subsection (1). The Minister of State said, I think, that the word "persons" in paragraphs (b) and (c) includes organisation as well, and I take that to be so. Does it also include statutory bodies like parish councils?
Will there be an absolute right for the parish council to be informed of when the schemes are made, to be shown the schemes and to be given the same opportunity of making their protests and making their recommendations as any other body? It is a very brief point and I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify it.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I feel that there should be a word from this side of the House both in support of

the new Clause and also in objection to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said. We have become accustomed to sound and fury from the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, but if anyone makes a protest about the time available he should not do so. We do not normally have the pleasure of his company, even when he is an official member of the Committee. Therefore, I would have thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be the last person to make any comment about the opportunities for debate in this House, or anywhere else.
It is quite normal for this period of time to be given. Those who have the opportunity of attending the Committee know, and others could have found out from the reports of the Committee, that this new Clause and many others follow on the debates there, and are at the request of hon. Members both in Opposition and on the Government side of the House. They are not new matters, and, therefore, the opportunity given is not unreasonable if we are to make progress with the proposals before us.

Mr. MacDermot: May I answer the hon. Gentleman's question? The answer is, yes, parish councils are included, by virtue of the provisions of the Interpretation Act, in the word "person", and they will have exactly the same rights as any other body to make representations and to participate in the formulation stage of plans which will affect them. It is precisely for this purpose that we are making the Amendment.

Sir Frank Pearson: Would the plans be specifically forwarded to them?

Mr. MacDermot: This may be done as a matter of internal arrangement. It is not required in the Act but parish councils would be included in the words:
… persons who may be expected to desire an opportunity of making representations to the authority …
Therefore, the duty is imposed on the planning authority to make sure that the publicity they give is such as is likely to reach them. They may find that the most convenient way is to send it to them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2.

APPROVAL OR REJECTION OF STRUCTURE PLAN BY MINISTER.

(1) The Minister may, after considering a structure plan submitted (or resubmitted) to him, either approve it (in whole or in part and with or without modifications or reservations) or reject it.

(2) In considering any such plan the Minister may take into account any matters which he thinks are relevant, whether or not they were taken into account in the plan as submitted to him.

(3) Where on taking any such plan into consideration the Minister does not determine then to reject it, he shall, before determining whether or not to approve it—

(a) consider any objections to the plan, so far as they are made in accordance with regulations under this Part of this Act;
(b) afford to any persons whose objections so made are not withdrawn an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by him for the purpose; and
(c) if a local inquiry or other hearing is held, also afford the like opportunity to the local planning authority and such other persons as he thinks fit.

(4) Without prejudice to subsection (3) above, on considering a structure plan the Minister may consult with or consider the views of any local planning authority or other persons, but shall not be under an obligation to consult with or consider the views of any other authority or persons or, except as provided by that subsection, to afford an opportunity for the making of any objections or other representations or to cause any local inquiry or other hearing to be held.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The new Clause is intended to replace, with a few adaptations, the provisions of the existing subsections (4) to (7) of Clause 3. The adaptations are made to take into account the fact that the structure plan may now need to be re-submitted, and this is met by the new wording of subsection (1) of the new Clause.
The only other change occurs in subsection (3) of the new Clause, which relates to the consideration of objections. Paragraph (a) of subsection (6) of the present Clause 3 obliges the Minister to
consider any objections made in accordance with regulations under this Part of this Act to the plan by persons who may be expected to have an interest therein ".

As I said a moment ago, this phrase has caused difficulty, and it has been found possible to discard it, retaining the limitation of the Minister's obligation to objections which are made in accordance with regulations. The principal matter of those regulations will be the time and manner of lodging objections. For the rest, the Clause repeats the provisions of Clause 3(4) to (7).

Mr. Graham Page: As I understand it, the new Clause is to take the place of the second part of Clause 3 as printed in the Bill. The previous new Clause 1 took the place of subsections (1) to (3) of Clause 3, and this Clause takes the place of subsections (5) to (7). What it does not disclose is exactly when the structure plan comes into operation. We are still left in some doubt on this, even after a very long Committee stage on the Bill.
The new Clause deals with the approval, or the rejection, of the structure plan, but particularly with the approval. At that point, as I understand, the plan will come into operation, and, at that point, I presume that certain Sections and parts of the Act, as it will then be, will be brought into operation, but until then they will be suspended. At this point, where the structure plan is approved, I assume that the development plan previously in operation for that area will die. This is the sort of thing which those who read the Bill will want to find out at an early stage. It is not disclosed, and I am not certain whether I have it right or not.
It is true that the Clause, like the previous one, has been redrafted to take into account matters which hon. Members put forward during the Committee stage. It is absolutely necessary for us to have an opportunity to look at the details of and the manner in which those proposals are brought into operation. It is not easy to grasp Clauses of this nature in the short time that they have been before us.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) commented on the absence of my right hon. and learned Friend from the Committee, stage. At least, he is here on Report stage.

Mr. Blenkinsop: He is not now.

Mr. Graham Page: He was here. He has gone out to telephone and he will be back in a moment, but that is more than the Minister has been, anyway.

Mr. MacDermot: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Minister is abroad on official duties.
I do not think that the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised arises under the new wording. The wording in the

New Clause 3.

PREPARATION OF LOCAL PLANS.

(1) A local planning authority who are in course of preparing a structure plan for their area, or have prepared for their area a structure plan which has not been approved or rejected by the Minister, may, if they think it desirable, prepare a local plan for any part of that area.


5
(2) Where a structure plan for their area has been approved by the Minister, the local planning authority shall as soon as practicable consider, and thereafter keep under review, the desirability of preparing and, if they consider it desirable and they have not already done so, shall prepare a local plan for any part of the area.



(3) A local plan shall consist of a map and a written statement and shall—


10
(a) formulate in such detail as the authority think appropriate the authority's proposals for the development and other use of land in that part of their area or for any description of development or other use of such land (including in either case such measures as the authority think fit for the improvement of the physical environment and the management of traffic); and


15
(b) contain such matters as may be prescribed or as the Minister may in any particular case direct.



(4) Different local plans may be prepared for different purposes for the same part of any area.


20
(5) A local plan for any area shall contain or be accompanied by such diagrams, illustrations and descriptive matter as the local planning authority think appropriate for the purpose of explaining or illustrating the proposals in the plan or as may be prescribed or as may in any particular case be specified in directions given by the Minister; and any such diagrams, illustrations and descriptive matter shall be treated as forming part of the plan.


25
(6) Where an area is indicated as an action area in a structure plan which has been approved by the Minister, the local planning authority shall (if they have not already done so) as soon as practicable after the approval of the plan prepare a local plan for that area.


30
(7) Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this section, the local planning authority shall, if the Minister gives them a direction in that behalf with respect to a part of an area for which a structure plan has been, or is in course of being prepared, as soon as practicable prepare for that part a local plan of such nature as may be specified in the direction.


35
(8) Directions under subsection (7) above may be given by the Minister either before or after he approves the structure plan, but no such directions shall require a local planning authority to take any steps to comply therewith until the structure plan has been approved by him.


40
(9) In formulating their proposals in a local plan the local planning authority shall secure that the proposals conform generally to the structure plan as it stands for the time being (whether or not it has been approved by the Minister) and shall have regard to any information and any other considerations which appear to them to be relevant or which may be prescribed, or which the Minister may in any particular case direct them to take into account.


45
(10) Before giving a direction under the foregoing provisions of this section to a local planning authority, the Minister shall consult the authority with respect to the proposed direction.



(11) Where a local planning authority are required by this section to prepare a local plan, they shall take steps for the adoption of the plan.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Clause follows that for this purpose in the Bill as it stands.

What he says is correct. A structure plan comes into effect when it is approved and to the extent that it is approved. It may be approved in part or in parts, and therefore different parts of it can come into effect at different times.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: With new Clause No. 3, I suggest we take the Amendment to line 36, leave out from first ' to' to ' until' and insert' adopt such local plan '.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This new Clause and the next one similarly are intended to replace Clause 5 which has also been divided in the same way and for the same purpose.
Subsection (1) contains an important new element. It permits, but does not require, a local planning authority who are in the course of preparing the structure plan for their area, or who have submitted such a plan to the Minister but who have not yet received his decision on it, to get to work on a local plan and to start preparing that local plan for any part of their area. At present, Clause 5(1) enables work on a local plan to commence only after the structure plan has been approved.
The general feeling in Standing Committee was that this would be unduly restrictive, and that local authorities ought to be able to start work on their local plans while awaiting the Minister's approval. This could hold up, to the public disadvantage, useful work which has already been set in motion in some areas on an informal basis. The authority will not be able to put its local plan on deposit and take the formal steps leading to its adoption. But it will be able to carry out all the preliminary stages, including the publicising of proposals and the receipt and consideration of representations.
It may be that, in a few isolated instances, the Minister's decision on the structure plan will be such as to necessitate a different local plan from that which the authority has been preparing. In that case, it will have to start again. But the savings in time and labour that the new provision will permit are likely far to outweigh any isolated cases where the Minister's decision on the structure plan renders abortive the preparatory work on the local plan. I stress that the power given to the local planning authority under this subsection is a discretionary one.
The Amendment which we are considering with this is proposing, in effect, that the Minister should be able to re-

quire the local planning authority to prepare a local plan during this period and also to take the formal steps leading up to adoption and everything other than the actual adoption of the local plan. We feel that this would not be right and that, until the Minister has himself given a decision on the structure plan, he should not be in a position to dictate to the local authority what it should do by way of work on a local plan, having regard to the fact that there is an element of risk that that work might be abortive in the way that I have just indicated. Therefore, we think that it should be a matter for the local authority's discretion.
Subsections (2) and (3) of the Clause contain only drafting changes. I hope that the House will agree that they are an improvement. Subsections (4) and (5) contain no change from the provisions which they replace. Subsection (6) contains a consequential amendment flowing from the possibility that the local planning authority will already have prepared an action area plan under subsection (1). Subsection (7) adapts the provisions of what is the present Clause 5(5) to the decision that work may start on preparing a local plan before the structure plan is approved.
Subsection (8) is new. It enables the Minister to give a direction under Subsection (7) either before or after approval of the structure plan, but provides that no such direction shall require a local planning authority to comply with it until the structure plan has been approved. The principle here is that, although a local planning authority is put on notice and is enabled to prepare a local plan before the structure plan is approved if it wishes, the statutory obligation to prepare a local plan exists only after the structure plan has been approved.
Subsection (9) is reworded. It now requires the local planning authority to ensure that the local plan conforms generally to the structure plan. There was criticism in Committee of the provision that the planning authority should "have regard" to the structure plan in formulating its local plan. It was thought possible that a local plan could be prepared under this wording which was inconsistent with the structure plan. The wording which we propose does not go so far as requiring absolute consistency with the structure plan, which we think


would produce undesirable rigidity and could give rise to much argument. I hope that the wording achieves what is generally felt to be the result that we want to obtain.
Subsection (10) repeats Clause 5(7). Subsection (11) obliges a local planning authority to take steps for the adoption of any local plan that it is required to produce. The object of that is to avoid a new generation of "bottom drawer" plans arising by the failure of local authorities to complete the necessary statutory procedures.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. James Allason: The Minister is very wise to split the old Clause 5. We have a considerable length of Clause as it is, without anything about publicity in it.
There are three changes in the Clause which we welcome. The first appears in subsection (1), where it becomes permissive to start preparing a local plan before the structure plan has been approved. This was pressed in Committee, and I am sure it will be helpful. The second one occurs in subsection (7), where the Minister may direct that the local plan should be prepared for part of an area where the structure plan has been prepared but not yet approved. Again, this was suggested in Committee and will be helpful. The third one occurs in subsection (9), which provides that the local plan should conform generally with the structure plan. That again is a considerable improvement.
However, I have one or two criticisms. The first relates to subsection (7), which provides that the Minister may give a direction to prepare a local plan for which a structure plan is in course of being prepared. It seems rather extraordinary that an authority which has not a structure plan even prepared, let alone submitted to the Minister, should be able to go ahead with the preparation of a local plan on that. It is something quite new, and I feel that it should be looked at again. It is difficult to see how it can conform generally to the structure plan if the structure plan has not been prepared.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I was not a member of the Committee, so I am not an expert, but I thought that the

hon. Gentleman said that he approved of subsection (1), which gives a local planning authority power to prepare a local plan where it has not yet got a structure plan. Now he is saying that he does not like the Minister to take powers to issue directions in that sense.

Mr. Allason: There are several stages. First, there is the preparation of the structure plan. Then it has to be submitted to the Minister. I am sure that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has read the report of the proceedings in Committee. If he has, he will remember that the Minister of State said that up to two years might elapse between the preparation of a local plan and its submission to the Minister and the Minister approving it. In other words, there may be a period of two years after the structure plan has been prepared and submitted during which it will not be possible for the authority to start preparing a local plan unless the Amendment is accepted. There is all the difference between a structure plan which has been prepared and submitted to the Minister and one which is merely in the course of preparation and not yet completed.
Then, as regards subsection (11), the Minister said that he does not want to see a number of local plans hanging about. However, all that subsection (11) says is that the local planning authority shall take steps for the adoption of the plan. What is meant by the phrase "shall take steps" is a little vague. Steps can be taken which do not end up by going through the doorway. There can be an item on a council's agenda for the adoption of the local plan, but that does not mean that the council will adopt it. I would say that just putting it on the agenda would be taking steps for the adoption of the plan. I wonder whether the words are entirely happy.
I turn now to the subsection (8). The Minister has explained that, having given directions under subsection (7) that he would like a local plan prepared, nevertheless, under subsection (8), the local authority need not comply with these directions. These seem funny directions to give. Is it desirable for the Minister to take power to give directions and to give an exemption in the following subsection from complying with those directions? The directions are to prepare a local plan ahead of the adoption of the


structure plan. Consequently, we have put down an Amendment, and here I formally beg to move—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member may not move his Amendment. It has, however, been selected for discussion with this new Clause.

Mr. Allason: The Amendment is to leave out the words "comply therewith" and substitute "adopt such local plan". It would then read:
… but no such directions shall require a local planning authority to take any steps to adopt the local plan until the structure plan has been approved by him.
This seems to be more sensible. If the Minister gives directions to prepare a local plan, surely it should be optional whether a local authority adopts such a local plan, but it should be incumbent upon it to go through the motions of looking at the Minister's proposals. The Minister does not give directions for fun. He gives them because he is anxious that a particular local plan shall be prepared. He is saying, in effect, "Let us get on with preparing it". Without this Amendment, subsections (7) and (8) do not hang together.

Mr. Lubbock: I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) has read his own Amendment very carefully, because it says:
leave out from first ' to ' to ' until'".
Therefore, the words "take any steps" are also intended to be left out. It does not alter the sense of the Amendment, and I think that I understand what he is trying to get at.

Mr. Allason: I apologise. The hon. Member is correct. It does have the same effect. I misquoted it.

Mr. Lubbock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It does not seem to alter the sense of his Amendment, but it would now read:
… but no such directions shall require a local planning authority to adopt such local plan until the structure plan has been approved by him.
I listened to the hon. Gentleman very carefully and I was grateful for the explanation which he gave for his concern about subsections (7) and (8). However, at the beginning of his speech he said that he wholly approved of subsection (1). I understand that was inserted in

response to representations made in Standing Committee. The hon. Gentleman explained that there was a distinction between the case where the structure plan had been prepared but was in the course of getting approval from the Minister and the case where the structure plan was in the course of preparation.
I should point out that both in subsection (1) and subsection (7) provision is made for the two alternatives. We have decided in subsection (1) that the local planning authority does not have to wait for the completion of its work on the structure plan before going ahead with preparation of a local plan if it thinks it desirable. It appears to me that the provisions of subsection (7) are analagous where the Minister can give a direction if the structure plan has either been prepared but not yet approved or, alternatively, is in the course of preparation. It seems unsatisfactory in a single Clause to have different provisions in two subsections. It would be impossibly confusing.
What is a local authority expected to do in the intervening period between a direction being given under subsection (7) and the date of approval of the structure plan, between which times it does not have to take any steps to comply with this direction? In moving the Clause the hon. Gentleman said that this would act as a kind of warning order. I am paraphrasing him, not quoting directly. If he expects a local authority to get on with the preparation of its plan, notwithstanding that he is saying it does not have to take any steps to comply with the direction, some happier wording might have been devised.
The kind of issue in this direction is that, soon after approval of the structure plan, he will come back to the planning authority and say, "We gave you a direction a couple of years ago. We want to know what you have been doing about it", and the local planning authority will be able to reply, "But, Minister, under subsection (8) we did not have to take any steps to comply with this direction until you had approved the structure plan, and we have only had a couple of months to do this work". There seems to be a conflict here, and I would be grateful if the Minister would clear it up before leaving the new Clause.

Mr. MacDermot: The first point raised by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) was that it seemed odd for the Minister to give a direction about the preparation of a local plan while the structure plan was in the course of preparation. It is the same point that I made before, to which the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) alluded just now. This is intended as a procedure whereby the Minister gives a warning to the authority that it will be required to produce what will probably be an action area plan for a particular area which is being considered. This will be useful knowledge to have when it is preparing its structure plan, or the part of it for that area.
For example, one might have a new system applying to an area round a conurbation. Let us suppose that it has already been agreed and decided that there shall be, under overspill arrangements, an expansion of a town situated in a county somewhere outside the conurbation. The Minister could say, "When the new structure plan is approved, we will want an action area plan for this area where there is to be an expanded new town".
Passing on to further points, we do not think it is right that the Minister should be able to compel a local planning authority to start preparing that action area plan in advance of the approval of its structure plan. We think it is more than likely that in most cases planning authorities will be glad of the warning and will make a start. The reason we do not think it right to be able to compel a local planning authority to start on the formal procedures is that this involves the public, and it would not be right for the Minister to be able to involve the public in formal action about the plan until the authority has the assurance that it is properly drawn in conformity with the structure plan.
It cannot have this assurance until the structure plan, or that part of it, has been approved. We envisage that the local authority, if it so wishes, can make a start on the preparatory stages of the action area plan, including public consultation and receiving representations,

but that the formal procedures for its adoption should await the approval of the structure plan.
4.30 p.m.
That fits in with the requirement of the Bill, namely, that in cases where the authority is acting not as the result of a direction by the Minister but purely on its own initiative it will not be able to start its formal procedures and put the plan on deposit for public inspection until it has received approval of the relevant part of the structure plan.
It is said that it seems strange to give directions and then exempt an authority from having to comply with them. That is not quite the picture. This provision enables the Minister to give a direction well in advance of the time when the local planning authority will be obliged to comply with it. In our opinion this will be for the convenience of planning authorities, and we feel that the procedures can be made quite clear to them without giving rise to any confusion.
I was asked about the words
take steps for the adoption of the plan.
I am not quite sure what wording it is suggested should be put in their place. We cannot have wording which would provide that the Minister can require an authority to adopt a plan, which would be the effect of the Opposition Amendment. An authority might say, "This is a matter for us to decide", and it would be within its rights, at that stage, to reject the plan itself.
What the subsection intends to do— and I believe that it will achieve its object—is to see that when a local authority has gone through all the stages of public consultation and has received representations it does not, at that stage, say, "Everybody seems agreed about this; we need not bother to go through the formal procedures for adoption." That could lead to another generation of bottom-drawer plans, and that is one of the things that we are trying to avoid under the new system.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4.

PUBLICITY FOR PREPARATION OF LOCAL PLANS.

(1) A local planning authority who propose to prepare a local plan shall take such steps as will in their opinion secure—


5
(a) that adequate publicity is given in their area to any relevant matter arising out of a survey of the area carried out by them under section 1 of this Act and to the matters proposed to be included in the plan;



(b) that persons who may be expected to desire an opportunity of making representations to the authority with respect to those matters are made aware that they are entitled to an opportunity of doing so; and


10
(c) that such persons are given an adequate opportunity of making such representations;



and the authority shall consider any representations made to them within the prescribed period.


15
(2) When the local planning authority have prepared a local plan, they shall, before adopting it or submitting it for approval under section 7(2) of this Act (but not before the Minister has approved the structure plan), make copies of the local plan available for inspection at their office and at such other places as may be prescribed and send a copy to the Minister; and each copy made available for inspection shall be accompanied by a statement of the time within which objections to the local plan may be made to the authority.


20
(3) A copy of a local plan sent to the Minister under subsection (2) above shall be accompanied by a statement containing such particulars, if any, as may be prescribed—



(a) of the steps which the authority have taken to comply with subsection (1) above; and


25
(b) of the authority's consultations with, and their consideration of the views of, other persons.


30
(4) If on considering the statement submitted with, and the matters included in, the local plan and any other information provided by the local planning authority, the Minister is not satisfied that the authority have adequately complied with subsection (1) above, he may, within twenty-one days of the receipt of the statement, direct the authority not to take any further steps for the adoption of the plan without taking such further action as he may specify in order better to comply with that subsection and satisfying him that they have done so.



(5) A local planning authority who are given directions by the Minister under subsection (4) above shall—


35
(a) forthwith withdraw the copies of the local plan made available for inspection as required by subsection (2) above, and



(b) notify any person by whom objections to the local plan have been made to the authority that the Minister has given such directions as aforesaid.



—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): The suggestion is that the two Amendments in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), in line 15, after first ' plan ', insert:
'so far as it applies to the area of that local plan'.
and in line 25, at end insert: 'and
(c) if (here shall have been an inquiry or other hearing under section 6 of this Act, a copy of the report and recommendation of the person who held such inquiry or hearing and a statement specifying the recommendations or findings of that person which

have not been accepted by the local planning authority and the reasons for non-acceptance.'
should be discussed with the new Clause and that, if so desired, there should be a separate Division on the second Amendment.

Mr. MacDermot: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I can deal with this new Clause much more briefly than I did with the previous one. It replaces, with Amendments, subsections (8) to (10) of Clause 5, dealing with publicity for the preparation of local plans. Subsection (l)(a) of the Clause requires publicity to be given to relevant matter arising out of a survey of the area under Clause 1. The previous provision referred only to relevant


matter in the report of the survey. The new wording will admit of matter other than that previously included in the report associated with the structure plan.
The rest of the alterations parallel those that we have already discussed under previous new Clauses, and provide, in particular, that publicity is to be given to the opportunity for representations as well as to proposals, and that the Minister may direct an authority not to proceed towards the adoption of a plan if he is not satisfied that it has adequately complied with the necessary steps required to secure adequate publicity and the opportunity for participation.
As for the Amendments, it may shorten matters if I indicate that I shall advise the House to accept the first one, which will result in improved wording.
The second Amendment is misconceived, for reasons that I can explain if necessary.

Mr. Allason: We welcome the importance given to publicity for local plans by putting them into a separate Clause. Publicity for local plans is of even greater importance than is publicity for structure plans. Structure plans are fairly complicated, and are for experts, but local plans deal with the real guts of the matter, and everybody is interested in them. There is a strong feeling in favour of public participation in planning, and the proposed Clause is intended to ensure that everybody's rights will be safeguarded, so that a person may see what the local plan intends for his town or locality and will have an opportunity of objecting. This is what planning is all about.
Although subsection (4) has some reference to publicity it is really much more concerned with what happens when a local plan is put to the Minister. This happens under Clause 7, and it is rather complicated to have to read subsection (4) of the proposed Clause in isolation from Clause 7 as it now stands. Subsection (4) provides that the Minister may, within 21 days, direct a local authority not to take any further steps for the adoption of a local plan.
What happens if the local authority has already adopted the local plan? I cannot find any provision in the Bill to say that a local authority cannot adopt

a local plan the day after it has been submitted to the Minister. It seems rather peculiar that there is a time limit on the Minister but not on the local authority.
I am glad that the Minister of State welcomes the Amendment in line 15, which means that it is not necessary for the whole structure plan to be adopted; the adoption of that part of the structure plan which refers to the area in question will be sufficient to enable the local authority to proceed.
As for the other Amendment, because of a later Amendment a local planning authority will no longer be the judge and jury in its own cause. That later Amendment provides that a local authority will not have a completely free hand to decide who shall be the inspector to conduct the inquiry into its local plan. Nevertheless, it still will be judge in its own cause, because there is no requirement that it should accept the decision of the inspector. If the inspector finds that the local plan is highly undesirable the local authority can still adopt it.
I do not suggest that local authorities will be in the habit of doing this, but for the protection of local authorities themselves it would be desirable to make it quite clear that they have not an absolutely free rein. A great deal of criticism has been expressed at the fact that local authorities have power to be judge in their own cause. If a local authority did not accept the findings of the inspector and proceeded against those findings, the Amendment would ensure that
… a copy of the report and recommendation of the person who held such inquiry … and a statement specifying the recommendations or findings … which have not been accepted … and the reasons for non-acceptance 
would have to be submitted. Thus, if a local planning authority was judge in its own cause, there would at least be a court of appeal in that the Minister would be informed and could consider the matter further.
4.45 p.m.
Since local planning authorities have considerable interests—they take steps to dispose of their own land, grant planning permission for buildings on their land, and so on—this curb should exist in the Bill. When considering the actions that


a planning authority can take, including the development or sale of its land, it is necessary, after such an inquiry or hearing, that there should be this type of appeal in view of the fact that certain steps may be to the detriment of the local community. Although an authority might consider it is acting in the best local sense, its actions might be detrimental and, without any sort of appeal, it might be heavily criticised at a later stage.
I trust, therefore, that the Minister will see the wisdom of having the sort of curb that the Amendment to line 25 would provide.

Mr. E. Rowlands: The revised Clause is related mainly to publicising of local plans. This question of publicity and public participation was debated at length in Standing Committee and I raised on one Amendment at that stage the question of including in the publicising of the Bill the need to publicise financial arrangements, and particularly those involved in local plans.
At that time, my proposal was criticised and the Minister pointed out that such financial arrangements would be more involved with local than with structural plans. Finally, towards the end of our third sitting, a measure of agreement was reached about financial arrangements which related to local plans and it was agreed that they should be seen, that they should be publicised and that this information should be made available to the public at the beginning and upon completion of any plan.
At that stage, my hon. and learned Friend said:
I should need to take advice on the matter before undertaking to write any legislative provision into the Bill or the Regulations. I will certainly consider how we would deal with that aspect."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G. 27th February, 1968; c. 146.]
I note that there is no provision in the revised Clause saying that local authorities should, by Statute, inform the public of the financial arrangements that have been made with, for example, a developer, in implementing local plans. Can we take it, therefore, that my hon. and learned Friend has decided to include this information in the regulations rather than in the Bill?

Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) asked what happens when a local plan is put to the Minister if the local authority has already adopted it. His question is misconceived, since the procedure is that a local authority has a resolution provisionally adopting the plan, and then that resolution must be sent to the Minister. A period must elapse—I have given an assurance that it will be not less than 28 days—before formal adoption and the Minister can consider the matter finally and even at that stage call it in.
The Amendment proposes that where an inquiry has been held
… a copy of the report and recommendation of the person who held such inquiry … specifying the recommendations or findings … which have not been accepted …
should be sent to the Minister at that stage.
This rests on a misunderstanding. After the phase of public participation in the formative parts of the plan, the planning authority finally determines its content. It then places it on deposit for public inspection—it will be required by Regulations to give notice of having done that—and then there is the period for the lodging of objections. At the same time, the local authority sends a copy to the Minister with a statement of the steps it has taken to comply with the requirements for public participation; so that it could not, at that stage, give a report of the local inquiry because it would not have taken place. Hon. Members should remember that there is, at that time, still a minimum period of just under 28 days to run to the end of the objection period.
We intend to make regulations requiring local authorities to send us copies of the reports made by inspectors—and, of course, they must have resolutions giving their reasons for rejecting any of the inspectors' recommendations. All of these matters would have to be sent to the Minister and there would still be adequate time for the Minister to call in the matter if he received representations urging him to do so and if he thought that that was the proper course to follow.
I again deplore, as I did in Committee, the use of the phrase about local authorities being judges in their own cause.


We are saying that, within certain spheres, these are proper matters to be decided by local authorities. The whole shape of the Bill is delegation to local authorities of local plans subject to certain checks and safeguards. Those have been strengthened in the Bill. The basic idea still is that these are matters which local planning authorities are the right authorities to decide. We do not want to begin by creating hostility, doubt and suspicion about their ability to do this by saying that we are making them judges in their own cause—any more than the Minister is a judge in his own cause in connection with matters he must decide. We are trying to get a planning system with the right structure and the right degree of decentralisation.
It is not right, either, to talk in terms of the authority rejecting the inspector's decision. There is no decision by the inspector. That power is and must be with the planning authority. The inspector is an independent person investigating objections and making representations. The local authority must be free, as must any other democratically-elected planning authority to decide what it thinks is right at the end of the day.
We have written in safeguards to ensure that the authority will not be able to ride roughshod over objections. I am entirely with the hon. Gentleman in this, but the procedures which we now have require an independent inspector, in the early stages appointed by the Minister, who can inquire into objections and make representations. The planning authority must then consider those recommendations and decide what to do in each case. If it rejects any, it must give reasons. After all that, the Minister, if he thinks that the thing has not been dealt with properly, can still call the matter in for his own examination.
Therefore, I hope that all hon. Members will give their support to this basic principle of delegation and not derogate from it.

Mr. Lubbock: All the points raised by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) could have been dealt with in the Bill and not left until subsequent regulations. For example, he did not see how one could provide for the possibility that the Minister would not decide

until 21 days from receipt of the statement, as he is entitled to do, in which time the local authority could have decided and it would be too late. The Minister of State said fairly that it was intended to prescribe 28 days for objections in the regulations. Will he take steps, when the Bill goes to another place, to have words inserted in subsection (2) to make this clear, so that people will not have to look elsewhere?
The same goes for the hon. Member's Amendment, which, as the Minister of State explained, is misconceived, because the inquiry or other hearing would happen after the statement had been submitted to the Minister under subsection (2) of the new Clause and not before, but it will have to be provided in the regulations that a copy of the report of such an inquiry should be submitted to the Minister, whatever he does with it. I am asking whether these two provisions —there may be others later—could not be incorporated in the Bill, instead of somewhere that it would be difficult to find them.

Mr. MacDermot: I hope that I have not exhausted my right to reply, since I should like to answer the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands). He raised this point in Committee, when I said that I doubted whether it could be properly embodied in the Bill. I confirm that view. It is a matter on which we can usefully give some administrative guidance. Fundamentally, the local authority must be allowed to act as the representative of its citizens. We agreed in the end that the whole basis of commercial negotiation would be impossible if the local authority were required to disclose details of current negotiations, but that it was desirable that the financial agreements eventually reached should be made known. They are, of course, available in the council minutes, but we had in mind more general publicity, which can be dealt with by administrative guidance.

Mr. Graham Page: I agree with the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), that much of what the Minister of State said about the regulations should have been embodied in the Bill, but he can rely on support from this side in his desire to leave with local planning


authorities the right to decide their own affairs when producing local plans. That must be so.
But let us consider the reality of this process. At the end of the day, the Bill will give the Minister power to refuse to allow planning authorities to adopt their local plan as they may wish to do. If that default power is to mean anything, the Minister must be wholly informed of what has gone on in the preparation of the plan and what objections have been made. If there are objections, they will be to proposals made by the local planning authority, to its draft plan. An inquiry will have considered those objections, the planning authority will have appointed an inspector, albeit someone approved by the Minister, but he will be the authority's inspector and will report to it. He will have no obligation to report to the Minister about his inquiry, but will be the servant of the planning authority.
Therefore, default powers are retained by the Minister to consider what has happened in the publishing of and inquiries into the local plan. He should have a full opportunity—and this should be provided in the Bill—to consider the objections put before the inspector if the local planning authority turns down the recommendations of the inspector upon those objections. I understand that the local planning authority will publish the facts—that is to say the survey, so far as it relates to the area of the proposed local plan—and its conclusions on the facts and its intentions with regard to a proposed local plan. That is in subsection (1).
The next step is for the local planning authority to prepare and publish its proposed local plan, the formal plan which has evolved from the survey and from its conclusions. At that point, no doubt, there will be objections—perhaps major perhaps minor—but, in almost every case, I should think that the local authority will have to meet some objections and that, in most cases, there will be an inquiry.
The Minister of State told us that the procedure will be for the local planning authority to report to the Minister about its proposed plan and the publicity which it has given to it before the inquiry, but this seems to put the cart before the

horse and is the point which our Amendment tried to improve. The local planning authority should not only report what it has done about the publicity given to its plan, and not only report on the proposed plan which it is putting before the public as its idea for the local plan, but should also report the objections on it and whether it has turned down any of those objections.

Mr. MacDermot: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that if those concerned have not done their publicity properly in the preparation stage, they should be made to go back and do it properly before they embark on the formal stages, and before the public get involved in the expense relating to the local inquiry. We must, therefore, have two stages—reporting to the Minister on the publicity on the informal stage and, when that is cleared out of the way, proceeding to the formal stages, on which there must also be a report.

Mr. Graham Page: I find nothing in the Bill about the second report, if I can put it in that way. First, there is the report by the local planning authority that it has carried out its publicity and has come to the conclusion that this should be the plan, and it submits a copy of the plan to the Minister. After that, there is nothing in the Bill imposing on the local planning authority an obligation to report to the Minister on the inquiry that has been held, the objections that have been made to the plan, and its decision on those objections.
Whether or not that should be in a separate subsection I should not like to guess, but it comes quite conveniently into subsection (3), and makes certain that the local planning authority has an obligation at some stage to report to the Minister what inquiry it has held, what objections were made, and whether it accepted or rejected those objections.
The Minister has said that he intends for this purpose to cause regulations to be made which will oblige the local planning authority to report the result of the inquiry. If he intends to make those regulations, let it be provided for in the Bill. This is such an important point, which has been raised by so many responsible bodies outside the House, that something ought to be stated categorically in the Bill. It should not be left


to some regulations which may or may not come before the House, because they will be subject to the annulment procedure and will not require an affirmative Resolution—in which case it will be just luck if they are ever discussed by the House and the public are sure that the Minister will have the time, opportunity and knowledge to intervene if the local authority is going wrong.

Mr. MacDermot: I will consider that point. For the reasons I have indicated, the hon. Gentleman's own Amendment would clearly not be workable, but I will consider his request that this matter of regulations should be written into the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Division No. 145.]
AYES
[5.4 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Prior, J. M. L.


Astor, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Pym, Francis


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Balniel, Lord
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bell, Ronald
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Biffen, John
Heseltine, Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Biggs-Davison, John
Hill, J. E. B.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Boardman, Tom
Holland, Philip
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hordern, Peter
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.SirWaller
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Kershaw, Anthony
Scott, Nicholas


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Kirk, Peter
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Kitson, Timothy
Silvester, Frederick


Burden, F. A.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Sinclair, Sir George


Cary, Sir Robert
Langford-Holt sir John
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Channon, H. P. G.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Speed, Keith


Clegg, Walter
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Stainton, Keith


Cooke, Robert
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stodart, Anthony


Costain, A. P.
Marten, Neil
Tapsell, Peter


Crouch, David
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Currie, G. B. H.
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Dance, James
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Tilney, John


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Monro, Hector
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Eden, Sir John
More, Jasper
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walters, Dennis


Emery, Peter
Murton, Oscar
Ward, Dame Irene


Errington, Sir Eric
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Webster, David


Eyre, Reginald
Onslow, Cranley
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Farr, John
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Foster, Sir John
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)



Goodhew, Victor
Peyton, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grant, Anthony
Pounder, Rafton
Mr. R. W. Elliott and Mr. Humphrey Atkins.




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bidwell, Sydney
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)


Allen, Scholefield
Binns, John
Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Blackburn, F.
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Carmichael, Neil


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Booth, Albert
Chapman, Donald


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Boyden, James
Coe, Denis


Barnett, Joel
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Concannon, J. D.


Beaney, Alan
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Bessell, Peter
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Amendment made: Line 15, after first 'plan', insert:
'so far as it applies to the area of that local plan'.—(Mr. Rippon.)

Amendment proposed: Line 25, at end insert:
'and
(c) if there shall have been an inquiry or other hearing under section 6 of this Act, a copy of the report and recommendation of the person who held such inquiry or hearing and a statement specifying the recommendations or findings of that person which have not been accepted by the local planning authority and the reasons for non-acceptance'.—(Mr. Rippon.)

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 114, Noes 156.

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, s.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Dell, Edmund
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Dempsey, James
Kenyon, Clifford
Price, William (Rugby)


Dewar, Donald
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lawson, George
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Dickens, James
Ledger, Ron
Roebuck, Roy


Doig, Peter
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Dunnett, Jack
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Loughlin, Charles
Sheldon, Robert


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lubbock, Eric
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Eadie, Alex
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
MacDermot, Niall
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Ellis, John
Macdonald, A. H.
Skeffington, Arthur


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Slater, Joseph


Fernyhough, E.
Mackintosh, John P.
Small, William


Fletcher, Raymond (likeston)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Snow, Julian


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Spriggs, Leslie


Fowler, Gerry
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Marks, Kenneth
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Freeson, Reginald
Marquand, David
Symonds, J. B.


Cardner, Tony
Mendelson, J. J.
Taverne, Dick


Garrett, W. E.
Millan, Bruce
Thornton, Ernest


Gregory, Arnold
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Tinn, James


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Tomney, Frank


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Urwin, T. W.


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Moonman, Eric
Varley, Eric G.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Moyle, Roland
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Hamling, William
Newens, Stan
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Hannan, William
Norwood, Christopher
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Malley, Brian
Wallace, Georgo


Haseldine, Norman
Orbach, Maurice
Watkins, David (Consett)


Hattersley, Roy
Orme, Stanley
Whitaker, Ben


Hazell, Bert
Oswald, Thomas
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Hooley, Frank
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Horner, John
Paget, R. T.
Winnick, David


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Huckfield, Leslie
Park, Trevor
Woof, Robert


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pavitt, Laurence
Vatee, Victor


Hunter, Adam
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)



Hynd, John
Pentland, Norman
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Irvine, Sir Arthur
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Mr. Alan Fitch and





Mr. Joseph Harper.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

New Clause 5.

RESTRICTIONS ON ENTITLEMENT OF STATUTORY UNDERTAKERS TO COMPENSATION FOR ADVERSE PLANNING DECISIONS.

(1) This section applies to the following planning decisions, namely—

(a) any decision made in accordance with section 159 of the principal Act (statutory undertakers' planning applications and appeals in respect of operational land to be dealt with by Ministers), whereby planning permission is refused or is granted subject to conditions; and
(b) any decision made by a Government department in a case where the department's authorisation is required for the development of operation land of statutory undertakers, being a decision—

(i) to refuse the authorisation on the grounds that planning permission ought not to be granted for the development, or
(ii) to grant the authorisation and direct that planning permission shall be deemed to be granted subject to condition other

than conditions imposed as part of the authorisation.

(2) Regulations under this Act may specify the descriptions of development which, in the case of named statutory undertakers or statutory undertakers of any specified class, are to be relevant for the purposes of entitlement to compensation for decisions to which this section applies.
(3) Regulations made for the purposes of this section shall be made—

(a) by the Minister, if he alone is the appropriate Minister in relation to statutory undertakers named, or belonging to a class specified, in the regulations; and
(b) in any other case by the Minister and any other Minister of the Crown who is the appropriate Minister in relation to statutory undertakers so named or belonging.

(4) Subject to subsection (6) below, where after the first coming into force of regulations made for the purposes of this section there is made in respect of any development by statutory undertakers a planning decision to which this section applies, the undertakers shall be entitled to compensation under section 170(1) of the principal Act only if the development is (whether wholly or in part) of a description specified by regulations made for the purposes of this section as relevant in their case for the purposes of entitlement to compensation;


and if the development is not wholly of that description, the compensation shall be assessed by reference only to the part of it which is of that description.

(5) Subject to subsection (6) below, where statutory undertakers are entitled to compensation in respect of a planning decision to which this section applies, being a decision made after the commencement of this section (whether before or after the first coming into force of regulations made for the purposes thereof), the amount of the compensation shall, instead of being an amount calculated in accordance with section 171(2) to (5) of the principal Act, be one half of an amount so calculated.
(6) Subsections (4) and (5) above shall not apply in the case of a decision made in accordance with section 159 of the principal Act refusing planning permission for the development of operational land of statutory undertakers, or granting such permission subject to conditions, where—

(a) planning permission for that development has been granted by a development order, but has been withdrawn by the issue of directions under powers in that behalf conferred by the order; and
(b) the development has not received specific Parliamentary approval (within the meaning given to that expression by section 58(3) of this Act). 

(7) Section 119 of the principal Act (compensation on refusal of planning permission or its grant subject to conditions) shall not apply in relation to planning permission for the development of operational land of statutory undertakers. 
(8) If any question arises whether development proposed to be carried out by statutory undertakers falls within a description specified by regulations made for the purposes of this section as being relevant in their case to entitlement to compensation under section 170(1) of the principal Act, the question shall be determined by the Minister, if he is the appropriate Minister in relation to those undertakers and, in any other case, by him and the appropriate Minister in relation to them. 
(9) In section 221(2) of the principal Act (determination of questions relating to position of statutory undertakers under the Act) for the words from 'determined by the Minister' onwards there shall be substituted the words 'determined by the Minister, if he is the appropriate Minister in relation to those undertakers and, in any other case, by him and the appropriate Minister in relation to them'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this new Clause we can take the Amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), to leave out subsection (8).

5.15 p.m.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This Clause is intended to take the place of Clause 60 in the Bill as it stands. Clause 60, which was introduced in Committee, reduces from 100 per cent. to 50 per cent. the compensation payable to statutory undertakers in respect of two kinds of planning restrictions on the development of their operational land. It reduces the compensation where planning permission, or a direction that it shall be "deemed" to be granted, has to be sought and is refused, or granted conditionally after appeal to Ministers jointly.
Secondly, it reduces the compensation where a general authorisation under a private or local Act or Order to carry out development has been made and automatic permission is withdrawn by direction and specific planning permission is refused or granted subject to conditions. In other cases—for example, the revocation of permission—the compensation remains 100 per cent. as in the case of people other than statutory undertakers.
The Clause received a general welcome in Committee, but there was also virtually unanimous feeling at the end of the discussion that it did not go far enough. Hon. Members were not quite so unanimous about what should take its place and how it should be extended. The hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) wanted to remove statutory undertakers altogether from the provision. Some, such as the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), proposed that compensation should be calculated by reference to a sliding scale relating to the rateable value of the local authority. As an alternative, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands) suggested at one point a ceiling relating to the authority's resources.
These suggestions would produce highly arbitrary results inconsistent with the special compensation basis. I undertook to look at the matter to see if we could find a way of meeting the feeling of the Committee and to confine the statutory privilege, reduced as it is to a 50 per cent. compensation right, to what seemed to be the more meritorious cases.
Another suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North


was that we should seek to draw distinctions between different types of development on operational land. The basis of this argument was to point out that there are at the moment a number of developments on what qualifies as operational land which are hardly within the spirit of the original statutory undertaker privilege. They are not matters which relate to any of the primary functions of statutory undertakers. Some may be very ancillary to their main functions. Nor are they necessarily matters in which the statutory undertakers are inhibited by technical considerations from carrying out an activity at one of quite a number of different places.
The proposal we put before the House in this Clause is to provide for the making of regulations jointly by the appropriate planning Minister and the appropriate sponsoring Minister to specify types of development for each class of statutory undertaker, or even for single undertakers. Where the development is covered by the regulations 50 per cent. compensation will be payable in the circumstances to which the present Clause 60 applies. In the same circumstances, if the development does not fall within the limitations, there will be no right to compensation.
The House will want to know something about the general principles the Government propose to adopt in framing the regulations. It is worth while to go back to the ideas which were in the mind of the Government when the special statutory undertakers' privileges were first laid down in 1944. The Government were influenced by two main considerations. First, there was the extent to which statutory undertakers had statutory duties to provide public services often at prices regulated by the Government, or by a Government agency. They were not free agents like shopkeepers or manufacturers. Secondly, they tended to be influenced to an unusually high degree by technical considerations as a result of which they could not easily pick and choose where to place a development.
One cannot put new railway sidings just where one chooses. They have to be alongside an existing railway. A power station has to be sited where fuel can be brought to it in the prodigious quantities which it consumes without making

nonsense of the network of operations. This is the kind of development one usually associates with statutory undertakers.
The legislators of 1944 foresaw situations in which planning control might frustrate the duties of statutory undertakers and provided machinery by which they could be relieved of statutory obligations. It is an indication of the good sense with which planning control has been exercised that this provision has not been needed. Not all these developments by statutory undertakers concern railway sidings or power stations. Many other things have to be considered such as administrative offices, showrooms, and houses or canteens for employees.
Within reason, developments like this can usually be sited almost anywhere and, if planning control were applied to them, statutory undertakers could not really say that the consequences would be embarrassing to them in financial terms or that they were being impeded in carrying out their statutory duties.
That is the conception to which the definition of operational land was intended to give effect. All development was to be subject to planning control, but where the proposed development formed part of the undertakers' primary business, they were given special safeguards against unreasonable restrictions. On the other hand, these safeguards were not thought necessary where a development was not part of the primary business—for example, showrooms.
The Clause deals not with operational land but with certain kinds of development on operational land. These kinds of development, which are to be described in regulations, are the only kinds of development which will qualify for compensation on a simple refusal of planning permission. For convenience, I shall call any such developments specified development. In framing the regulations, the Government propose to follow the principles underlying the original 1944 legislation. Specified development will be development necessary to enable an undertaker to carry out a primary statutory function and, in particular, in the siting or design of which operational considerations seriously limit the undertaker's freedom of choice.
It may help the House if I give some examples. I have already mentioned


houses for employees. If a water board wished to build a house within the precincts of a waterworks for an employee for security or for round-the-clock duties, that would probably be specified development because that house must clearly be on the site. Houses for general employees, on the other hand, would not be specified because there is no need for them to live on the site. Next, an example from the transport world. Under the Transport Bill, now before the House, the proposed new passenger transport executives will be statutory undertakers. They will have a wide variety of powers and they will certainly have operational land. I should expect a general extension to a city bus station to be specified development because the station is necessary to enable the executive to do its primary job, and the places where the extension could be sited would be considerably limited.
Equally, I think that a new waiting room building at the station would be specified development. But a petrol filling station at a car park serving private car owners would not be. It would not be part of the primary function to provide transport services, and, if there were objection to it by the local planning authority, I do not think that the executive could claim that the primary operations for which it was set up would be seriously or unreasonably impeded.
Now, an example from airports. The British Airports Authority is a statutory undertaker and its airports, or the greater part of them, are clearly operational land. Equally clearly, the terminal buildings would be specified development, and I imagine that we should all accept that reasonable facilities for refreshment are essential in the terminal buildings. But if the Authority wanted to provide entirely separate facilities solely for spectators such as a viewing gallery with its own restaurant and car park some distance away from the terminal buildings that might well be a different matter.
From what I have said about houses for employees and restaurants at airports, the House will appreciate that whether a development is specified development or not may depend upon whether it serves the primary function and where it is to be sited. This illustrates why it is neces-

sary to go into some detail in order to produce fair and sensible results. That is why we have to provide for the making of regulations. Before the regulations are made, we shall consult the local authority associations and the statutory undertakers or their representative associations. I hope that the explanation I have given will show the House the lines on which my right hon. Friends intend to work.
It will take some time to negotiate all the regulations with the other Departments. The effect of subsections (4) and (5) of the new Clause is that, between the time when the Clause comes into force and the time when regulations come into force for any particular statutory undertaker, that undertaker will in the cases to which the present Clause 60 applies receive only 50 per cent. compensation. In other words, these subsections keep alive the present provisions in Clause 60 until they are replaced by more restrictive provisions under the regulations.
The Amendment to the new Clause would omit subsection (8). Taken at its face value, this would be unacceptable as it would leave out the provisions for determining who should decide a dispute about whether or not a particular development fell within the regulations. Some provision must be made, and I suspect that the Amendment is probing. Perhaps I should explain the reason why it is proposed that this matter, like planning appeals in this field, should be determined by the planning Minister and the sponsoring Minister jointly instead of, as at present, by the sponsoring Minister alone. In this respect, we are going back to the 1944 legislation, which made it a joint responsibility of the two Ministers. We think this the better way for two reasons.
First, it will enable the planning Minister to see that there is general uniformity in the application of the regulations among the different activities of statutory undertakers. Second, it will enable the planning Minister to see that planning interests are taken properly into consideration in the application of the regulations.

Mr. Lubbock: I have one question to put to the Minister about power stations. He said that, because of the restrictions


on their siting, power station developments would be specified in the regulations and would qualify for compensation. He explained that a power station consumes enormous quantities of fuel which must be brought to it, generally speaking by rail, sometimes by water, and this imposes considerable restrictions on the choice of land to be used for operational purposes by any generating board.
Will a distinction be made in the regulations between conventional stations, which do require an enormous amount of fuel and which require land associated with the station where supplies of the fuel can be stored for periods of up to several weeks at a time, and stations fuelled by nuclear means which do not carry any of these limitations? I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Minister of Power has recently relaxed the siting restrictions for nuclear stations so as to permit them to be constructed closer to large centres of population. Thus, the only remaining restriction on the siting of nuclear stations depends upon the availability of water. So long as a nuclear station is on an estuary or a river with a substantial flow of water, its siting requirements are properly met.
Is it the Government's intention to make that distinction in the regulations? I ask that question haying particularly in mind the example which the Minister of State gave, in which he put great emphasis on the need for rail access for supplies to be brought to power stations.

Mr. John Ellis: I direct attention to subsection (2) of the new Clause. The Minister of State has not yet mentioned the position of lessees of statutory undertakers. I should not wish to detain the House with a constituency case unless I thought that it impinged on the general principles which we are discussing, but I have a matter to raise which, I think, the House will regard as demonstrating a point of some importance and on which I want an assurance.
In my constituency, there is a small railway yard and station at Shirehampton. The railway undertaking was a statutory undertaker enjoying the privileges to which we are now referring. Because of the centralisation of its handling methods, the railway no longer wanted this yard

and it negotiated a lease—I do not know the terms of it—with G.T. Western, a company concerned with fuel oils for domestic heating appliances. We are about to see a gas holder type of fuel tank, 30 to 40 feet high, go up in a residential area.
There is no doubt that but for the provisions relating to statutory undertakings this development would not have been allowed, but because the company was lessee of the statutory undertaker it has the same kinds of privileges as the statutory undertaker. There was no necessity for it even to consult the planning authority. It merely started to make what was in effect a major fuel bunkering station. Other developments could take place were it not for an agreement with British Railways, which has now given certain pledges that it will at least consult the local planning authority.
5.30 p.m.
Therefore, I ask whether the Bill also covers lessees. I notice that in the Clause the considerations likely to be taken into account when regulations are being considered are not spelt out though some instances have been given. Would the kind of case I have mentioned qualify? I believe that with British Railways increasingly centralising its operations it will be giving up many more station yards and buildings, as in the case to which I have referred. G.T. Western acquired the lot; it took the station buildings for administration purposes as well. I foresee that when British Railways centralises its shunting yards it will no longer use many small and medium-sized yards. It may be that they will be in areas where there is industrial development, but, as in the case I have mentioned, they may be in an area otherwise designated, or which may be designated for housing development and certainly not for industrial purposes.
We must tighten up the legislation here. I do not think that it is realistic to expect the local authority to find the compensation, even at a 50 per cent. level. As matters stand, I can go into a residential area and get a lease from British Railways, and as lessee I do not need to apply for any kind of planning permission; so long as I leave one railway line down to say that I am using the railways, I can build a biscuit factory over the


whole of that operational land, and I have only to say that I will bring in my raw materials to take out my finished goods by rail.
The new Clause is good, and goes some of the way to what we want to see. But it is urgent that we press on with negotiations on the Minister's regulations. I should like the assurance that this legislation, even as it is now before us, will include lessees in its provisions, and that when the Minister considers the kind of orders he will make under the Clause his consideration will cover the point of British Railways getting rid of land that it no longer uses, and which is made available to lessees who do not need planning permission on the tenuous ground that they still have some connection with bringing in their materials by rail. I hope that he will see to it that the legislation is so tight that it is not possible to go so far away from the primary functions of railways as has happened at Shirehampton in the recent past.

Mr. Oscar Murton: The speech of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) gives great point to the anxiety which all of us feel about the problem of compensation and what a statutory undertaker can do at present. I feel very tempted to recount the story of the long and anxious struggle I had on behalf of some of my constituents over the question of a coal concentration depot. But I have already told it once in Committee, and I believe that the matter is now going the way I would wish.
I am rather disappointed with the form of the new Clause after the long and full discussions we had in Committee. I should almost say that it is a defeatist Clause in many ways, because I believe that a simpler and better method of compensation could have been worked out. I fear that we shall be completely bogged down by a series of complex regulations. However brilliant may be those occupants of the Treasury Bench who will have some say in the formulation of the regulations, and however talented may be those in the Ministry who will assist them, I have great fears as to whether the regulations can be made comprehensive enough to cover all the possible aspects and facets of the various plan-

ning problems which can arise in the future. I cannot see that in all respects the Clause will do what it is intended to do. There will be many loopholes, and many cases will arise from it.
The Minister said that he disapproved of our Amendment proposing to leave out subsection (8), and gave the reasons why he thought it wrong to do so. We think that it should be left out because it seems totally wrong that a Minister, or a Minister acting with a second Minister, should be both judge and jury in an important case such as might well arise over the question of compensation. We believe most strongly that this is a matter which should be considered only in the courts. It is wrong in principle that a Minister should be able to make a decision in a matter affecting a Department in which he has a direct interest. Therefore, we strongly press that the subsection be removed and that a court should decide where there is a conflict of interest.

Mr. John Fraser: My hon. and learned Friend very helpfully gave examples of distinctions between one kind of development on operational land and another. I want to give others for consideration by the House. Going out of London on many of the main railway lines, one sees archways beneath the lines where engineering and other fairly noisy activities take place. I understand the posititon to be that, because the railway line is operational land and zoned for railway purposes, there is no control over the commercial use of the archways beneath. Nor is there any control over the use of the railways above. This is one example of the use of railways above and a yard below.
Another example is that of the development of the periphery of railway land which may have grave effects on residential amenities. For example, in such a case the planting of a screen of trees or the erection of some screen or barrier bordering the operational land and the statutory undertaker could make a great deal of difference to the amenities of the adjoining residential land.
Thirdly, there are coal yards where tippers' coal loading devices can be installed and will not be refused by the local authority for fear of having to pay compensation. There is, therefore, a case for distinguishing between coal loading



which could go to a more convenient place and the use of the sidings by the railways.
I do not ask for answers to these examples at the moment, but I do ask for an undertaking that my hon. and learned Friend will receive a deputation from local authorities about the way in which the regulations are to be drafted and that there will be negotiations with the statutory undertakers themselves.

Mr. E. Rowlands: I do not share the disappointment about the Clause expresed by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Murton). I think that the Minister has achieved a remarkable feat by drafting a Clause which in any way covers the problems which faced us on this issue in our tortuous Committee stage. I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend translated it. I had difficulty in appreciating fully what the Government have been able to do until he did translate it.
My hon. and learned Friend said that he would embody in the Clause the philosophy of the responsibilities given to statutory undertakers by Parliament but would distinguish between those services which, by statute, they have to provide and those which are permissive. This is a most valuable step forward. There will be a great sigh of relief from many local authorities when faced with these sports of situations and the reduction in compensation will be most valuable.
Finally, may I ask my hon. and learned Friend whether, in the case which has been discussed and which I shall not go over again, the regulations would include the gas holder as being one where there would be no compensation, or whether there would be 50 per cent. compensation?

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: With respect to the Minister, I think that he has funked the issue. He has produced an admirable Clause empowering him to make regulations but that is not what we wanted. This matter has been under discussion for a considerable time—since before this Bill and then in detail during the Committee stage. The principles have been thoroughly thrashed out. Yet we are now presented—and such a situation puts the House into considerable difficulty—with a Clause which says that the Minister will make regulations.
Until the Minister spoke a few moments ago, as far as I know no one in the House had the slightest idea of the principles on which the regulations were to be made. We are to decide, not even with a piece of paper before us setting out the principles, whether we give the Minister a blank cheque to make these regulations. Listening to what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, and speaking off the record, I would agree with the way his mind is working in thinking about the preparation of the regulations. But it is difficult to ask us to commit ourselves to the spoken word across the Floor of the House without having had an opportunity to consider the matter in detail.
This is a very technical and important matter. Large sums of money are involved, as we know from cases in the past few months. This is not a small matter of planning procedure but a major problem of policy and finance. We should have had an opportunity of considering on paper exactly what the Government intend in these regulations.
The new Clause describes operational land in subsection (1). It then goes on to describe what is to be development. The Minister made an important point concerning categories of development which will be compensatable development. If I understand him correctly, in future the consideration is not to be whether it is development on operational land but what is to be the development. This will meet the point put by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis). I understood his case to be that the railways can develop anything on their operational land under the law as it stands. If, indeed, in future it is not the fact of operational land but the nature of the development on it that is to be considered, this will, I think, meet the point he made. I hope that it will.
It may also meet the case put by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser). I almost called him the hon. Member for "Flanagan and Allen" after the way be talked about "underneath the arches". I did not realise until he spoke that these are not the subject of planning permissions. These places are really not on operational land, and surely the nature of the development should be taken into account. If such development is to be the subject of planning


permission, it will meet many difficulties. Undoubtedly there is a clear distinction, if one can define it, between such development and the operations or developments which there is a statutory duty to carry out and for which there are technical reasons for their being carried out in a certain way. If statutory undertakers are obliged to carry out development of that kind, they should not be frustrated by planning control.
Indeed, Parliament should not be frustrated by planning controls because those cases in which Parliament has given the statutory undertakers the right and duty to carry out this work will be those which, I should think, will be defined in the regulations as compensatory. How the definition is to be drawn is the Minister's duty to decide.
I remind the House that the regulations will not necessarily come before Parliament. They are to be subject to annulment procedure and will not require affirmative Resolution. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider this matter again. We should require the regulations to be by affirmative Resolution, since they will be very important. They will not merely set out a procedure for planning or for some scheme. They will be a major change in the policy of this House and we should be asked to pass an affirmative Resolution in respect of them and not merely have them rest on the Table until some hon. Member sees fit to initiate a Prayer against them.
Subsection (6) refers to the previous subsections, which relate to the types of development which shall be compensated, and says that they
… shall not apply in the case of a decision made in accordance with section 159 of the principal Act …".
If the compensation provisions do not apply, does that mean that, in those cases, statutory undertakers will get 100 per cent., or nothing? If they do not apply and the present law continues in respect of these events, it means that statutory undertakers would get 100 per cent. On the other hand, had it said that the compensation provisions did not apply, one would normally think that they would not get any compensation. I am not sure of the meaning of subsection (6) in this respect.
The Opposition Amendment would delete subsection (8). If the Minister makes regulations and the House approves them, either by an affirmative Resolution or by not laying a Prayer against them and annulling them, it seems that the Minister is then overriding the decisions of Parliament by interpreting the regulations as he chooses. Subsection (8) allows him to determine a matter
If any question arises whether development proposed to be carried out by statutory undertakers falls within a description specified by regulations made for the purposes of this section….
If the right hon. Gentleman makes an ambiguous description in the regulations, he will then be able to decide what he meant by the regulations and not what the House meant should be passed by way of delegated legislation. This is a wrong constitutional principle of which the House should not approve. If the Minister is to make regulations and if they are passed by the House, either specifically or passed by not being objected to, then they become law. It should not be for the Minister, but for the judges in the courts, to decide what the law is.
We are put in the gravest difficulty in considering an important new Clause of this sort by not having before us something to study so that we can consider, with the care this important matter deserves, the intentions of the Government when they come to make these regulations. We are asked to give a blanket cheque merely on listening for the first time today to the Government's intentions by word of mouth. It is not easy for us to legislate on a matter of this sort on that basis.

Mr. MacDermot: This is not an easy matter on which to legislate on any basis. One of the few matters on which we were agreed in Committee was that the complexity of this problem is considerable.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) asked which side of the line nuclear power stations would fall under the new regulations. I believe that what he had in mind was a new nuclear power station, and he may have missed the fact that, under other provisions already written into the Bill, the power of statutory undertakers to acquire land and then


say, "We want this for our operational purposes", and thereby avoid the need for planning permission, is being removed. Consequently, if a statutory undertaker wants to set up a nuclear power station in future he will have to get plannng permission like everybody else, and if permission is refused he will not have any right to compensation.

Mr. Lubbock: Is that so?

Mr. MacDermot: Yes. It comes under Clause 58. In other words, as soon as planning permission is given in respect of any new land to be acquired or acquired by a statutory undertaker which can then qualify as operational land, privileges will attach to it; but he cannot claim compensation just for the refusal of planning permission on newly acquired land. I believe that that covers the point the hon. Gentleman had in mind. If one had the situation of an existing nuclear power station, which is already on operational land, and in respect of which a developer wanted to expand, by way of further development, it would then depend on the nature of that development, on the principles I have explained, whether or not a refusal of compensation would qualify under the new system of regulations for compensation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) raised a question which was raised in Committee, as the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) pointed out, and which I know is concerning many people: the planning privileges attaching to the lessees of statutory undertakers in some cases. These privileges derive from Class 17 of the General Development Order. The regulations which are proposed under the new clause would not touch or deal with the problem because where statutory undertakers have rights which, broadly speaking, are co-extensive with the rights of other industrialists which are not statutory undertakers, then if those rights are withdrawn—for example, by an Article 4 direction—they will be entitled to full compensation, just as an ordinary industrialist would be.
Class 17 is, broadly speaking, comparable to rights which other industrialists have under the General Development Order. I say "broadly speaking" because I agree that in some respects it goes further than the rights which other industrialists have, and the case to which my hon.

Friend referred is probably the type of case which gives rise to the most worry and objection. I repeat what I said in Standing Committee, that it is our intention, when the Bill becomes law, to review the provisions of the General Development Order; and I assure my hon. Friend that we will look at the point that he raised in that review and consider whether the wording of Class 17 in the General Development Order should be so wide so as to cover the sort of case to which he referred.
The hon. Member for Poole said he was disappointed at the form in which our solution was presented and that a more simple method would have been better. I entirely agree and I was looking forward expectantly, hoping that he was about to propound that which has eluded us all—namely, a simple method of solving this problem—but I notice that he kept a discrete silence.
6.0 p.m.
The argument about the Amendment to leave out subsection (8) is whether the courts or an appeal to Ministers should determine a dispute between a planning authority and a statutory undertaker as to whether a class of development for which planning permission is refused should attract compensation under the new regulations. The hon. Gentleman argued that it was wrong to have the appeal to the Minister for the sponsoring Department and suggested that the Minister would have a financial interest. That is not the right way to put it. He may be the Minister for the sponsoring Department for a public corporation whose interests are at stake, but it is in order, to see that his concern with protecting the legitimate interests of the statutory undertaker is balanced by an equal concern to uphold proper planning principles, that we propose that this should be done jointly by the two Ministers.
It may be asked whether this matter is better dealt with by Ministers or by the courts. I suggest that it is better done by Ministers; otherwise it will mean a tremendous burden for planning authorities who would have to fight what would necessarily be long and extensive litigation to determine an issue. One of the complaints, particularly for smaller planning authorities, is that there is too


much pressure on them and we are seeking to remove some of it, particularly in the 50 per cent. provisions. But if we compel them to take any disputed case to the courts, that would be a very heavy burden. This can surely be much more simply and fairly determined by the two Ministers jointly. There is a precedent in the appeals system for planning applications, which is from statutory undertakers to the two Ministers jointly and that works satisfactorily on the whole.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) mentioned a number of examples, like railway arches and coal yards where tipping devices are used. These are cases of rights arising from Article 17 of the General Development Order and they will be carefully considered when we review the provisions of that Article.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands) gave a general welcome to this Clause, for which I am grateful, and asked what would be the position under it of the Abingdon gasholder case. I think that that is a case to which the 50 per cent. compensation provision would apply under the proposed system.
The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) was a little unkind to say that I had funked the issue. We have grasped it, and in a way which will, I am afraid, put a lot of work on us in preparing these regulations. However, as I said in Committee, I could find no simple formula which could be embodied in a statute to draw a distinction between those classes of activity by statutory undertakers which should be "compen-satable" and those which should not. I then drew attention to the fact that we have already made provision under the 1962 Act to define by regulations for the National Coal Board which classes of activity should attract these privileges, and I am afraid that it is inevitable that we must seek a solution along those lines. I would have liked to be able to write in simple criteria, but I cannot do so.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the matter should be dealt with by affirma-

Division No. 146.]
AYES
[6.7 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Barnett, Joe!


Allen, Scholefield
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Beaney, Alan


Armstrong, Ernest
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bessell, Peter

tive rather than negative Resolution. There will be quite a number of these Orders, however, and they will all relieve the ratepayer and will not put any additional burden on the citizen. In that case, it is proper that they should be dealt with by negative Resolution.

Subsection (6) deals with the situation to which I referred in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West—the kind of case in which a statutory undertaker has planning permission, under the General Development Order, which is withdrawn by an Article 4 direction, and where it falls within Clause 17, which is, in general parallel with a similar class which affects private industry and in which it is, therefore, right that they should have 100 per cent. compensation. I know that there is a general feeling that that class is perhaps too widely drawn, and we will therefore look at that when we review the General Development Order.

Mr. Rippon: I thank the Minister of State for that reply. We all understand that the Government have made a real effort to improve the law in this regard, but although it is right to cut down the special privileges of the statutory undertakers, many people still hold that they should enjoy no privileges at all, compared with other developers. This is more arguable but, with the best will in the world, the Government have not yet succeeded in making the law entirely satisfactory.
I am disappointed that the Minister of State cannot accept our Amendment to leave out subsection (8), which would have been an improvement. We are not happy about the limitation which he mentioned of a 50 per cent. grant in the case of the Abingdon gasholder. That needs looking at again. Therefore, it may be for the greater convenience of the House if we do not press the Amendment, but in view of the hon. and learned Gentleman's answer, simply divide the House on the Clause.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 158, Noes 117.

Bidwell, Sydney
Henig, Stanley
Pavitt, Laurence


Blackburn, F.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hooley, Frank
Pentland, Norman


Boyden, James
Horner, John
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hoy, James
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Huckfield, Leslie
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George
(Belper) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hunter, Adam
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Irvine, Sir Arthur
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Roebuck, Roy


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stecnford)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Carmichael, Neil
Kelley, Richard
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Chapman, Donald
Kenyon, Clifford
Sheldon, Robert


Coe, Denis
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Darting, Rt, Hn. George
Ledger, Ron
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Skeffington, Arthur


Dempsey, James
Loughlin, Charles
Slater, Joseph


Dewar, Donald
Lubbock, Eric
Small, William


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Snow, Julian


Dickens, James
MacDermot, Niall
Spriggs, Leslie


Doig, Peter
Macdonald, A. H.
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Dunnett, Jack
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Mackie, John
Swingler, Stephen


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th&amp;C'b'e)
Mackintosh, John P.
Symonds, J. B.


Eadie, Alex
McNamara, J. Kevin
Taverne, Dick



Edwards, William (Merioneth)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Thornton, Ernest


Ellis, John
Marks, Kenneth
Tinn, James


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Marquand, David
Tomney, Frank


Fernyhough, E.
Mayhew, Christopher
Urwin, T. W.


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mendelson, J. J.
Varley, Eric G.


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Millan, Bruce
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Fowler, Gerry
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Freeson, Reginald
Moonman, Eric
Wallace, George


Galpern, Sir Myer
Moyle, Roland
Watkins, David (Consett)


Gardner, Tony
Newens, Stan
Whitaker, Ben


Garrett, W. E.
Norwood, Christopher
Whitlock, William


Gourlay, Harry
O'Malley, Brian
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Gregory, Arnold
Orbach, Maurice
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Orme, Stanley
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Winnick, David


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Grimond, Rt. Hn, J.
Paget, R. T.
Woof, Robert


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles



Hamling, William
Pardoe, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Park, Trevor
Mr. J. D. Concannon and


Haseldine, Norman
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Mr. Joseph Harper.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Eden, Sir John
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Marten, Neil


Astor, John
Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Maude, Angus



Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Emery, Peter
Mawby, Ray


Bell, Ronald
Errington, Sir Eric
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Biffen, John
Farr, John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S, L. C.


Biggs-Davison, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Foster, Sir John
Monro, Hector


Boardman, Tom
Goodhew, victor
More, Jasper


Bossom, Sir Clive
Grant, Anthony
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Murton, Oscar


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Onslow, Cranley


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hill, J. E. B.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Holland, Philip
Percival, lan


Burden, F. A.
Hordern, Peter
Peyton, John


Cary, Sir Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Pink, R. Bonner


Channon, H. P. G.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pounder, Rafton


Clegg, Walter
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Cooke, Robert
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Prior, J. M. L.


Costain, A. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Pym, Francis


Crouch, David
Kirk, Peter
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Currie, C. B. H.
Kitson, Timothy
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Dance, James
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, 8tr Henry
Langford-Holt Sir John
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas







Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Speed, Keith
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Robson Brown, Sir William
Stainton, Keith
Walters, Dennis


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Stodart, Anthony
Ward, Dame Irene


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Tapsell, Peter
Webster, David


Russell, Sir Ronald
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Scott, Nicholas
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Sharples, Richard
Temple, John M.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret



Silvester, Frederick
Tilney, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Sinclair, 8ir George
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)

Mr. Humphrey Atkins.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause 6.

MATTERS WHICH MAY BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE MINISTER IN LISTING BUILDINGS UNDER SECTION 32 OF PRINCIPAL ACT.

In considering whether to include a building in a list compiled or approved under section 32 of the principal Act, the Minister may take into account not only the building itself but also—

(a) any respect in which its exterior contributes to the architectural or historic interest of any group of buildings of which it forms part; and
(b) the desirability of preserving, on the ground of its architectural or historic interest, any feature of the building consisting of a man-made object or structure fixed to the building or forming part of the land and comprised within the curtilage of the building.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6.15 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
Perhaps it might be for the convenience of the House if I referred in passing to Government Amendment No. 71, in Clause 33, page 27, line 6, at end insert:
(3) For the purposes of this part of this Act, any object or structure fixed to a building or forming part of the land and comprised within the curtilage of a building shall be treated as part of the building.
If the House were good enough to accept the new Clause the Bill will require a consequential Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: We may take them together, if there is no objection. So be it.

Mr. Skeffington: I am much obliged.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), on 2nd April, asked whether the definition of building in Section 221 of the principal

Act was wide enough to cover all the surrounding features of a building which it might be desirable to bring within the confines of Clause 33 so that the whole character of the building might be preserved, and I undertook to look at the matter. The Government have, therefore, decided that it would be advantageous to have this new Clause, which is divided into two parts, paragraphs (a) and (b), to deal with the point which he raised. It would enable man-made structures attached to a building to be included, and they are now specifically included by the definition. It could be an item of machinery. One might say, what has an item of machinery to do with a historic architectural building? It may be an ancient pump or something of interest to the industrial archaeologist.
Further, the definition in paragraph (b) deals with other man-made structures fixed to a building or forming part of the land and comprised within the curtilage of the building. This might be a terrace, or cobbles, features of that kind. I hope that my hon. Friend will be pleased that his intervention has led to the improvement in this Part of the Bill.
At the same time we have taken advantage of the opportunity to put into legislative form a decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of the Earl of Iveagh v. Ministry of Housing, where there was a dispute on the Minister's determination on appeal as to whether a group of buildings acquired historic and architectural interest by the circumstances of their being part of a group. The Master of the Rolls decided that this was within the general planning provisions, but it was not specifically spelt out in legislation. We have taken advantage of the Clause to incorporate that decision in paragraph (a).
The Government Amendment No. 71 to which I have referred makes the consequential Amendment in Clause 33 were this Clause to be accepted.

Mr. Allason: During the Committee stage I declared a provisional interest on the basis that I did not know whether my house was listed or not, and the Minister of State said that he would inquire and let me know. He let me know by the Ministry sending to me last Friday a notice of listing. What is interesting is that the listing that he sent me is only for the courtyard before my house and not for the house itself, so I am still unaware whether or not my house is listed. All I know is that it is intended to list the courtyard, which seems very peculiar, in view of the terms of Section 32 of the 1962 Act which refers to listing a building, and of this Amendment, which seeks to extend the building so that other matters can be listed.
I wonder whether the Minister will admit that he is acting ultra vires in attempting to list the little courtyard in front of my house. Otherwise, I would imagine that paragraph (b) of the new Clause is unnecessary.
We all welcome paragraph (a), which provides that an architectural facade should be protected even though what lies behind the facade may have little merit. The Regent's Park terraces are not of great historic value, but the facade is magnificent.
Paragraph (b) says that the Minister may take into account
 the desirability of preserving, on the ground of its architectural or historic interest, any feature of the building consisting of a man-made object or structure fixed to the building or forming part of the land and comprised within the curtilage of the building.
I understand that the curtilage of the building means the full extent of the garden. If there is a summerhouse half a mile from the house, I cannot see how it can possibly be a feature of the house.

Mr. Skeffington: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. This refers to a separate feature. Anything which was a long way from the house would have to be the subject of a separate listing.

Mr. Allason: How is a summerhouse a feature of the building if it is close to the house;? It must be the wording, "a feature of the building", which is at fault. Perhaps the Minister would look at that again.
Provided that the feature is close to the House, so that the building and the feature which is desirable are closely integrated, it is desirable that it should be preserved. A fine terrace running round the front of the house clearly ought to be preserved. I am glad to see that the intention is that this refers to something close to the house and in those circumstances I welcome the Clause.

Mr. John Fraser: I would like to thank my hon. Friend for these Amendments, which I find acceptable, and which arise from undertakings he gave in Committee stage. The attitude of the Front Bench has been both receptive and cooperative.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause No. 7.

PART-TIME ENGAGEMENT IN AGRICULTURE.

Where planning permission has been granted under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962, subject to the condition that the building is to be occupied by a person engaged in agriculture as defined in section 221 of the said Act, or by the dependant of such person, the condition shall be satisfied by the occupation of the building by a person, or by the dependants of a person, who is engaged part-time in agriculture.—[Mr. Turton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. R. H. Turton: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Clause deals with the problem that arises where planning permission is given under Section 17 of the principal Act, subject to a restrictive condition on the dwelling being used by someone engaged in agriculture. The view originally held was that this would be satisfied in cases where a person was not a whole-time farmer or farmworker, but where his dwelling-house was surrounded by agricultural land and he lived in the house and cultivated that agricultural land. It now appears that this is not a correct interpretation of the restrictive condition, and a number of problems have arisen from it.
I would like to say at the outset that I put this new Clause down in order to


have the position clarified and not because I thought that my drafting would necessarily satisfy the Minister. I hope that by putting the new Clause down, and explaining the case to the Minister, if he feels that I have made a point, perhaps he will introduce a new Clause in another place.
When one is dealing with a restrictive condition in an area where the only industry is agriculture, I do not believe that any great difficulty results. In those areas there will always be a large number of people requiring dwelling-houses who will be able to satisfy the condition of being engaged whole-time in agriculture. But when this condition is applied in areas where there are other industries, or in dormitory areas, then considerable difficulty occurs when this restriction has been laid down.
In the area surrounding York, in my constituency, the interpretation of this restrictive condition has resulted in houses being built which are unoccupied and unsaleable. This is a highly undesirable state of affairs in parts of the country surrounding York which are either dormitory areas or have some industry in them.
6.30 p.m.
Let me give two specific instances to make the position clear. In one case, a developer obtained permission under Section 17 to build a house. He sold it with 1¾ acres of land to a prominent solicitor in a nearby town. The value of the property was about £7,000 or £8,000, which indicates that it was a fairly expensive house and not a cottage. Intending to fulfil the condition, the solicitor took advice from the planning authority and from other members of his profession. As soon as he entered the house, he did what he could to cultivate the 1¾ acres by making it pasture and meadow. However, he was told that that was not consistent with the condition, because he could not be engaged whole-time in agriculture if he continued to be a solicitor. As a result, he was forced to attempt to sell the house. Unfortunately, he could not find a purchaser who was prepared to take on this fairly expensive house and be required to satisfy the condition.
The other case concerned a house with three acres of land. It was bought by the manager of a construction firm, who tried to fulfil the condition by turning the three acres into piggeries with a view to developing pig production. Unfortunately, the venture failed, because he discovered that the land was subject to flooding. Pigs not being aquatic animals, he was obliged to abandon his plans. He then tried to turn the land into a forest nursery. However, he was told that, to comply with the condition, he would have to give up his job as manager of a very well-known firm of building constructors, retire at once to his house, and do nothing but grow forest trees.
That was not a very attractive proposition to him, and the only alternative was to sell the house. He found a man wanting to buy it who was engaged in selling feeding stuffs to farmers, and he wished to cultivate the three acres and grow crops. However, he was told that, as he was not engaged whole-time in agriculture but was merely a salesman of agricultural feeding stuffs to farmers, he could not qualify under this restrictive condition.
By quoting those examples, I hope that I have shown that there is doubt about the way in which these restrictive covenants work. I think that the law on this matter, which is contained in the Section 221 definition, requires amendment in certain cases. I can see the difficulty. One does not want Section 17 permissions granted to people in agricultural areas whose connections with agriculture are too tenuous. On the other hand, if a planning authority attempts to operate the condition in a dormitory area such as I have referred to, it should be widened to give the authority greater latitude than it has at present. In such areas, housing accommodation is very short. There is a great demand for it from those working in local industry or requiring it for dormitory purposes. It cannot be in the public interest for houses to be unoccupied in those areas.

Mr. Skeffington: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the terms in which he has moved his Motion. There is a problem here, but, as is so often the case in planning, it is a matter of getting the balance right.
In developing his argument, the right hon. Gentleman pointed to some of the


difficulties that any widening of the existing provisions might bring in its train. They are particularly important in areas of green belt outside our great conurbations, though it is a less urgent problem in his part of the country. Whenever I travel between York and Scarborough, I am reminded how fortunate he is to represent such a remarkably attractive area.
Nevertheless, in green belts and areas of outstanding natural beauty near conurbations, there is a very difficult problem in which the local planning authority has to balance the legitimate and genuine needs of agriculture with preventing the kind of pepper potting which one sees even now in some parts of the country under the existing provisions. From time to time, I indulge in fairly low-level flying over some of these areas, and I am horrified at the degree of pepper potting which exists. It is a very difficult and delicate exercise in power which a local planning authority has to carry out in these matters.
Perhaps I might put on record the form of condition which is usually put into a planning permission. Obviously, it is there because one must meet the demands for accommodation of persons employed in agriculture or forestry. It is usually in connection with stock, but there may be other very good reasons where there is no alternative. The form of the condition is generally along these lines:
The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person employed, or last employed, locally in agriculture as defined in section 221 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, or in forestry, or a dependant of such a person residing with him (but including a widow or widower of such a person).
That is the condition, and it is one which is necessary and right.
The condition is generally not interpreted as stipulating that the occupant shall be a person exclusively or whole-time engaged in agriculture. For that reason, I was interested to hear the cases to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. What he told us is not my experience of the way in which the condition normally operates.
It is true that there has to be a substantial interest. A planning authority would not normally contemplate cases

where someone was engaged in agriculture very much on a part-time basis. The condition relates to a new building, and it is of particular importance in the sensitive areas to which we are referring. There would have to be a fairly substantial commitment to agriculture. However, it need not be a whole-time one. Since the right hon. Gentleman put down his new Clause, I have made inquiries, and I am satisfied that that is the way in which the condition is interpreted.
I see difficulty in accepting the new Clause. Obviously, one has to provide new accommodation for agricultural workers. I have evidenced what I have seen from the air. Anyone taking a train from London and going in any direction will see the amount of pepper potting that has taken place in the green belt. Any further weakening of the provision in the terms of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment might open the door very wide. This is what worries the Government and the planning authorities in these sensitive areas.
I was surprised and sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman referring to houses remaining empty because of this condition. Section 20 of the 1962 Act provides that permission can be obtained to retain buildings or works when the original condition no longer applies. Applications made under this section are sympathetically treated by local planning authorities. This gets over the major difficulty of empty properties. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will direct the attention of those concerned to this provision, which may be of help to them.
Concerning the other cases which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, I understand—and I will be glad to look at any particulars he cares to send me— that while there must be a substantial commitment to work in agriculture, it does not have to be whole time. Because of the dangers, the Government are of the view it would open the door too wide. Therefore, with regret, but for sound reasons, I could not advise the House to accept the right hon. Gentleman's new Clause. However, I am glad that he has given us the opportunity to discuss it.

Mr. Rippon: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for that answer. As always, he tries to give a considered


reply to points raised in Committee or elsewhere, but I am not sure that he has altogether met the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton).
There is great difficulty in the country. There is, first, the consideration of what provision needs to be made for agricultural dwelling-houses for full-time agricultural workers. The Parliamentary Secretary has referred to the dangers of pepper potting in areas of outstanding natural beauty. There may be cases when it is right that the most stringent steps should be taken to prevent any dwelling-house being erected. I always fear, in debates of this kind, that Ministers and local planning authorities are apt to treat the green belt as an area which should be absolutely sterile and in which no activity, agricultural or otherwise, should go on and there is great difficult in many areas in establishing with local planning authorities the need for an agricultural dwelling-house. I think that the view they take is often too stringent.
It is against that background that the Parliamentary Secretary has said there is anxiety about a Clause of this kind. The anxiety arises because, if the provision regarding residence is weakened in any way, local planning authorities may be even more difficult about granting planning permissions. I concede that difficulty, but I should like to think that the Ministry would give rather clearer guidance to local planning authorities about the circumstances in which they ought to allow what must be sporadic development in rural areas but which serves an essential agricultural purpose.
I do not think that the public visiting the countryside are in any way put off by seeing a certain number of dwelling-houses properly sited. We should not be afraid of allowing properly sited dwelling-houses in the countryside. It may be that we could do a great deal more by allowing the natural expansion of villages, though notionally into the green belt. We need to emphasise sometimes that the green belt was not meant to be a sterile area in which no activity takes place. However, I understand why the Parliamentary Secretary is saying that this new Clause might be dangerous in that it might induce local planning authorities to be even stricter.
The Parliamentary Secretary was helpful in what he said about a dwelling-house and whether it should be used exclusively for an agricultural worker. It would be reassuring if the Ministry would give some guidance to local planning authorities in interpreting the concept of an exclusive or whole-time agricultural worker. If the Ministry is fairly elastic in its definition of what is a substantial part of the time, that might meet the situation.
6.45 p.m.
There is a need in many areas to take administrative, if not legal, action in the form proposed by my right hon. Friend to see that more is done to meet the residential requirements of part-time agricultural workers. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend wishes to push this matter to a Division. I do not think that we need do that on this matter. I hope that the debate will have helped to show that we are concerned about a real problem. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will take some administrative action to bring the problem to the attention of local planning authorities, so that they can make greater efforts to provide more agricultural dwelling-house permissions and to interpret as fairly and reasonably as possible the concept of what is a substantial part of the time of the occupant engaged in agriculture.

Mr. Skeffington: Before the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) makes any further contribution, I should inform him and the House that we intend to put out a further statement on particular aspects of the new planning legislation which will cover this matter. I hope that nothing I have said will be taken to mean that the local authority must not plan properly for the expansion of agriculture in the right places. As the right hon. Gentleman frankly admitted, the more expensive type of property tends to be in isolation. Therefore, the siting of it, unless controlled, can ruin a whole prospect. This is where the planning authorities want to be particularly careful, though weighing up all the matters I have mentioned.

Mr. Turton: In view of the clear explanation given by the Minister, and the further assurance that he will take administrative action to bring the present


state of the law to the attention of planning authorities, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 8.

ALLEVIATION OF HARDSHIP ARISING IN CERTAIN CASES WHERE COMPENSATION FOR OWNER-OCCUPIED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IS LESS THAN FULL OPEN MARKET VALUE.

(1) Where a local authority acquires owner-occupied residential property which forms part of an area of town development (as referred to in Part I of Schedule 1 to the Land Compensation Act 1961), and where the compensation payable is less than full open market value, then, subject to the provisions of this section, the local authority acquiring the property shall (if so required by the vendor) provide an interest free loan to the vendor not greater than the difference between the compensation paid and the full open market value of the property acquired by the local authority.
(2) The said loan shall only be made if and when the vendor completes the purchase of a replacement residential property for his own occupation within two years of the completion of the acquisition of his property by the local authority.
(3) The replacement property shall be situate in the vicinity of the acquiring local authority.
(4) The said loan shall not in any case exceed 90 per cent. of the value of the replacement property which value shall be assessed and certified to and at the expense of the authority by a competent professional valuer to be instructed by the authority.
(5) The said loan shall automatically become a charge on the replacement property and must be registered as a Land Charge against it or, in the case of Registered Land, recorded in H.M. Land Registry.
(6) The said loan shall be repaid—

(a) if the vendor ceases to reside in the replacement property;
(b) on the death of the survivor of the vendor and his spouse:

Provided—



(a) that if the vendor ceases to reside in the replacement property, in circumstances where he sells it and within 12 months completes the purchase of another replacement property then the local authority which first acquired the original property shall on request grant another interest-free loan within the terms of this section which shall thereupon become a charge on the property under this section and be subject to the other provisions of this section;
(b) the replacement property may itself be replaced as contemplated in this proviso without limit to the number of occasions

until the death of the survivor of the vendor and his spouse.

(7) In cases where the property acquired by the local authority is occupied by the vendor partly for business and partly for residential purposes the interest-free loan shall be granted in proportion to that part of the whole property which is occupied for residential purposes only.

Any apportionment of value for this purpose shall be decided in the manner provided in subsection (8) of this section.

(8) The full open market value of the property acquired shall be as may be agreed between the parties or in default of agreement as settled by an arbitrator under the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1950 (as amended at any time) or under any enactment replacing the same.

An Arbitrator under this section shall be appointed by agreement between the parties or in default of agreement by the President for the time being of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.—[Mr. David Mitchell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
Right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that Basingstoke is an important town. Not only because Gilbert and Sullivan drew attention to it, but it is of special importance regarding town and country planning, because it is one of the most forward towns being built under the expanded towns procedure in the Town Development Act, 1952. It takes a large number of Londoners in for rehousing at present.
First, I will explain the problem which has arisen in the application of compensation relating to expanded town purchases and then I will set out the method which the new Clause proposes for dealing with it. The 1961 Compensation Act, under which compensation is assessed in cases of this kind, provides that the local authority—or the district valuer in valuing on behalf of the local authority—has to disregard the increase in value which has been caused by the decision to make it into an expanded town. When one examines the situation one can see justifiably the idea in Parliament's mind when it laid down this provision in the original Act.
For example, if a farmer has a large farm and the planning authority decides to create a new town in and around that farm the value of his land may rise suddenly from £400 an acre to perhaps


£40,000 an acre—or to £4,000 an acre if it is a smaller development. I can appreciate the feeling that existed in the House in 1961 that the happy farmer who owned that land ought not, suddenly, to get this vast increase in capital wealth as the result of a decision over which he had no control. There was an obvious sense of justice and fair play in the original legislation.
But when that argument is applied in the case of an expanded town—where a population already exists, with all the interwoven activity that is associated with the neighbourhood—the effect is very different. The best way to explain the situation is to mention the case which was drawn to my attention by two constituents, who asked me, "What are we to do? The most dreadful thing has happened to us. We have discovered that our house and garden is required by Basingstoke Corporation for their town expansion." I said, "I am very sorry. Although I understand how these things happen, nevertheless, you will receive compensation which will enable you to buy a house somewhere else."
We then proceeded to discover the amount of compensation to which they were entitled, and we found that because, in valuing the property, the district valuer had to disregard the increase in value occasioned by the fact that Basingstoke was an "expanded town", the compensation paid was totally insufficient for them to rehouse themselves in the same locality.
In other words, such a person would have to pick himself up from the town where he had lived and worked all his life and move miles away into the country, where land prices were not inflated by the value of the new town. In fact, a new town of the size of Basingstoke can affect the values of land in all the villages within a radius of eight miles. In such a situation the person concerned has to move right away from his friends, neighbours and work if he is to obtain a similar property to that which he had before.
On a number of occasions I have suggested to this Minister of State—and gave him notice of this new Clause—when he was in his other guise as Financial Secretary to the Treasury that the

district valuer at Basingstoke might have been unreasonably tough in his negotiations and in his valuation of the property in the town. As a result of my plea an investigation was undertaken, although I am by no means happy with the result, as the Minister of State knows.
But that is not the point I am raising now. The point is that the answer which came from the Government was to the effect that there was nothing wrong with the valuer's valuation; that was correct. The fact was that the law was unfair. Now the Minister has been transplanted from the Treasury and from being able to say that the financial assessment was correct to another field where, as Minister of State for Housing and Local Government he has an opportunity to put right the wrong which is still being done as a result of the existing form of valuation.
I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will seize his opportunity and accept the Clause. I am not a parliamentary draftsman. If parts of the Clause are not phrased as they should be I shall be happy to accept from the Minister an assurance that, suitably adjusted to fit in with the correct draftsman language, he will bring in a new Clause of his own at a later stage, when the Bill goes to the Upper House.
Perhaps I may illustrate the need for my new Clause by giving two examples. The first example concerns the Elston family. Mr. Elston is a retired naval man. He retired to a site in Basingstoke. I have a photograph which I can give the Minister if he would like to see it. It is a nice situation, facing south with a good view over open country. Mr. Elston had his couple of acres. He kept rabbits and pigs and had some fruit trees. He was enjoying a nice, quiet retirement in a delightful spot.
The valuation of his property was about £3,500. If he wants to buy an equivalent property in the Basingstoke area it will cost him about £5,500—approximately £2,000 more than he has received in compensation. As a result, he has had to sell up and move away from Basingstoke. I am appalled to have to tell the House that far from his being able to find an equivalent property a little distance from Basingstoke he now has to live in a caravan with his wife, in their old


age. This cannot be the sort of thing that the House intended.
The other example is a more tragic one, which should persuade the Minister that he cannot delay this matter any longer. It concerns the Ilsley family, who lived on a similar smallholding. Mr Ilsley was ill advised, or well advised—I do not know which—to buy himself a bungalow on the other side of the road which was not subject to compulsory purchase and was similar to that in which he had previously lived. Again, it cost him £2,000 more than he received in compensation. This fact weighed upon him so much and the financial difficulties that it brought with it caused him so much sadness and wretchedness that he committed suicide.
Mr. Ilsley's case aroused a great deal of local concern and worry and brought home to me the need for a change in the law. That is why I have put down the Clause and why I beg the Government not to delay but to seize this opportunity of putting right the injustice that arises in the situations.
The method I suggest in this Clause is quite simple. There would be a good case for saying that in the circumstances we should allow the people concerned to obtain the full market value. If a person's property is devalued because of development he does not receive compensation, and in my view what is good for the goose should be good for the gander. But I have put forward a much simpler and more moderate case. I suggest that such people should be given an interest free loan to enable them to buy equivalent property just for the length of their lifetime. Not so that they make a capital gain. It would simply enable them to live in an equivalent property for the remainder of their lives.
In subsection (1), the Clause provides that the local authority should make this interest free loan. This would not be a great hardship for a local authority because it would have bought land cheap at the old price, before values were inflated by the development. It is also selling expensively at the inflated values caused by the town development. It makes all the capital appreciation which comes from the increase in value because of the new town.
Subsection (2) limits the loan to alternative property which is bought within

two years. Subsection (3) limits it to a property bought within the vicinity of the local authority area in which the man or woman previously lived. The purpose of the Clause is to help people who are otherwise forced to move.
Subsection (4) is a security to ensure that the local authority can eventually be fully repaid. Subsection (5) provides for a charge against the deeds of the property, giving adequate security for the loan. Subsection (6) makes the loan repayable when the man or his wife, whoever is the survivor, dies. Subsection (7) apportions properties which are partly residential and partly commercial, such as shops with living accommodation above. Great hardship can be suffered in such cases. Subsection (8) provides for arbitration.
This is a matter of considerable interest and urgent need in the Basingstoke area and in other areas which have not reached our advanced stage of town development. I hope that the House will agree that the Clause should be accepted, since it is an example of moderate, inexpensive, simple justice.

Mr. A. P. Costain: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell), because this is a very good compromise in a difficult situation. This problem arises not only in the case of new town procedure but in many others. I do not know why the Government will not pay reasonable compensation for a property which they need for their own benefit. If they fail to do that, my hon. Friend's alternative is very reasoned, and I think that the Minister of State is bound to accept it.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am grateful for this new Clause. There is no provision in the computation of compensation in compulsory purchase for the person concerned having to live further from his job. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) mentioned the personal hardship involved in having to move when compensation is inadequate to enable the dispossessed person to buy a similar property in the same area. There is also the financial hardship which can result and can probably be avoided only by such a measure as this.
If someone has to move eight or 10 miles—that means 16 or 20 a day travelling to and from work—simple arithmetic will show how much that would be in a year, and it is a considerable expense. Apart from the inequity of having to move, not because there is no accommodation, but because the compensation is inadequate for the accommodation which is desired, my hon. Friend's proposal of an interest-free loan is the absolute minimum which the community owes the dispossessed individual or family. As it is a loan which would be paid back on the death of the survivor of the family unit, the local authority or the community would get a magnificent bargain, even if the full wording were accepted.
I hope that the Minister of State will not say that the Clause applies to any property, large or small, since the principles of justice are not particular to given sizes of property but have general application. I hope that, whatever brief, ending with advice to reject the Clause, the Ministry may have produced as a reply to my hon. Friend's able speech, the hon. and learned Gentleman will thrust such a brief where is properly belongs, into the waste paper basket, and advise us instead to accept the Clause. It is the minimum which, in justice, is owed to those suffering the distressing experience of dispossession. Even if no financial hardship is involved, it is still very distressing.

Mr. MacDermot: As the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) has said, this is not the first time that he and I have debated problems arising from compensation payable to his constituents because of the extension of that town. Our previous debates arose chiefly out of his wholly unjustifiable attacks on the district valuer, as a result of which I instituted a special inquiry which completely failed to support his allegations. I am sorry that he still, by implication, appears to want to attack the district valuer.
The hon. Member then put into my mouth today words which I have never used, saying that I had told him, "It is not the fault of the district valuer, but of the law, which is unfair." I have never said that the law is unfair. I told him that the district valuer merely takes the law as he finds it and that if the hon. Member thinks that it is unfair he can

change it. But he should not put words into my mouth. I know that he is asking today that the law should be changed.
The Government have made it clear that this is a planning and not a compensation Bill. It contains some compensation provisions, because it was inevitable, when we changed to the structure plan system, that we should revise the provisions for compensation for blight so as to fit them into the new planning system. The compensation provisions in the Bill are a necessary consequence.
Many proposals are being mooted for revision of the compensation code in the 1961 Act—which, I would remind the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), is their Act and not ours. I do not want to be thought to be prejudging the present consideration of these matters. The hon. Gentleman has persuasively argued this proposal, which is contained in the Memorandum submitted by the Chartered Land Societies to our Ministry and it is already being seriously considered in the Government. This is a very complicated field and not a matter which can or should be dealt with piecemeal.
That can be illustrated here. The hon. Member for Basingstoke is attacking one of the basic principles of our compensation code, a principle of considerable antiquity and which is to be found in the rules contained in the 1919 Act—that is, that where land is publicly acquired for a particular scheme of development, any alteration in the value of that land in consequence of that scheme is to be disregarded in assessing the compensation. One may criticise that, but it is a basic principle running right through our compensation code and it would not be right for us to deal piecemeal, in the way the hon. Gentleman is seeking us to do, with that principle.
Underlying the principle, and the reason why it has been found in all our compensation Acts, certainly since 1919, is the fact to which the hon. Member for Basingstoke alluded: that where a public authority itself, by its own action, is enhancing the value of land, it does not seem reasonable that, when it is acquiring that land, it should have to pay the enhanced value resulting only from its development. In accordance with the general principle of our compensation


code, what is payable is the market value as it was before the scheme affected the value of the land.
The solution which the hon. Member for Basingstoke has proposed follows closely the proposals which have been put to us by the Chartered Land Societies and I would prefer, therefore, not to comment on that one way or the other, except to say that they are receiving attention along with the many other matters to which our attention has been drawn.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke referred to the position in his constituency. There have been some problems. He raised some, and some have arisen out of the compensation payable under this type of development. They have, in the main, been problems concerned with owners who have had to sell the smaller type of substandard house. I am not alluding to any cases to which the hon. Gentleman referred, because I am not familiar with the details of those cases. Nevertheless, it is in this sphere that the problem about which he was speaking arises.
As the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) said, this problem is not confined to new towns or town development schemes. It can also arise in slum clearance. In our White Paper published the other day we accepted the principle of paying the market value on owner-occupied houses in slum clearance schemes. It would still leave this problem, however, in the sense that people getting that market value might, where an area is being redeveloped, find it difficult to find another comparable property in the same area at the same price. Such property may not exist.

Mr. Costain: From the rehousing point of view, had they been tenants of a council they would have been found alternative accommodation. Are we not penalising those who have been thrifty and, as a result, have bought their own homes?

Mr. MacDermot: We are not penalising them. We are paying them the value of their property as it is on the market. One might say that because of the situation of compulsory purchase they will be put to other expense or have to move from the area. Nevertheless, from

the point of view of the assessment of compensation for the value of the property concerned, they are getting the market value, which is the general principle accepted throughout the compensation code.
The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) raises another factor in suggesting that we should compensate people for extra travelling expenses incurred at their new abode. I do not know how far he would carry this complication. If they moved nearer to their work and had less travelling expenses, would he have them give credit for that when assessing the compensation payable on the value of their homes? In any event, this all departs from our basic principles of compensation.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I was not saying that compensation should give given for travelling to and from work. I was saying that because people are put to this extra expense when they cannot rehouse themselves locally, our proposals should be adopted so that they could rehouse themselves locally and would not be put to additional expense for which there is no compensation.

Mr. MacDermot: For the reasons I have indicated, this is not a Clause which the Government could accept in this Measure; and, in any event, we could consider the question of legislating on it only within the context of a revision of the compensation code.

Mr. Allason: The hon. and learned Gentleman is correct in saying that the provisions of the 1961 Act are complicated. Our fear is that when compensation is assessed it tends to be done by rule of thumb. Too often I have heard the fraction "half" mentioned and one hears that half the normal compensation shall be paid in respect of new towns. This is a highly dangerous principle to follow and is not in any way related to the 1961 Act.
The Minister explained that the increased value of land due to a development scheme should not be paid in compensation. That may be so, but the fact remains that in a new town or in neighbouring towns new houses and building plots are roughly at the same value. One would, therefore, expect that


for a going concern, so to speak—a house, garden, and so on—full compensation should be paid because there is no added value as a result of the coming of the new town, except where there is a large garden, in which case I accept that a considerable increase in value might occur. Although one would expect full compensation to be paid for a building plot or one house, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) pointed out that compensation has been roughly half of what one would expect to be the actual figure, and this is bound to cause suspicion.
Had the Minister said that he had investigated the cases of compensation mentioned by my hon. Friend, and that a fair market value had been paid, his arguments against the Clause would be strong, but he said no such thing. One is left with the suspicion, therefore, that inadequate compensation is paid as a result of the 1961 rules.
The danger here is that what is happening will get around. The Government will suffer in the long run, because expanded new towns must be in the interests of the nation. If the news gets around that inadequate compensation is paid in the event of land being taken as the result of an expanded town scheme, the local inhabitants will not want to know about such a new scheme. In North Devon recently a general poll was held on the question of an expanded town scheme and it was rejected by the local inhabitants, who said that they did not want the expanded town.
I appreciate why the Minister does not want to deal with the matter in this Measure, but I wish that he had given a warmer welcome to the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke.

Mr. David Mitchell: I am very disappointed that the Minister should have turned down such a very reasoned and fair proposal on the ground that it would be a breach of a principle which was enshrined 40 years ago in other circumstances. I wonder when it was suddenly decided by this Government that because something is hidden in about 40 years of antiquity it must automatically be right in regard to future events? In any event, my case is not one of old prin-

ciple but of practical humanity and of righting an injustice which I see day by day in my constituency advice "surgery", or deal with by post—

Mr. Lubbock: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that this is a case of 40 wasted years?

Mr. Mitchell: I am interested to hear the hon. Member's intervention, but, in fairness, it should be stated that the problem has not existed for that length of time, and was not foreseen by those who enacted the compensation legislation.
I am interested to hear from the Minister that the Chartered Land Agents' Society has made proposals similar to mine. I was not aware of that fact, but I am glad that, independently, we have arrived at the same conclusion. I hope that that may fortify the Minister into taking his brief back to his Ministry and asking his officials there to read what has been said in this debate, not just by myself but by my hon. Friends; and to see whether they cannot produce some practicable proposals for alleviating the problem in the form of new Government legislation in the course of months, not years ahead.
I urge the Minister to look at this problem quickly. How many tragedies must we have? How many cases must I have of people coming to me in tears? How many cases must I have of people who are driven literally to a doctor's surgery because of their troubles, anxieties and worries in this connection? How many cases before we have Government action?

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 9.

PUBLICISING OF INDIVIDUAL APPLICATIONS.

(1)A person submitting a planning application to his local planning authority shall before doing so obtain from the owner or owners of the land specified in the application written consent to the erection on that land of a notice of a kind specified in this section and shall submit that written consent to the local planning authority together with his application.M

(2) Not later than seven days after the receipt of such application and consent it shall be the duty of the local authority to erect on that land in a position conveniently visible from the nearest public right of way a notice indicating that a planning application has been


submitted in respect of that land and that particulars of that application may be obtained at the offices of the local planning authority.

(3) The Minister may by regulation prescribe he size of such notice, the size of the lettering and the wording of the inscription.

(4) The local authority shall not determine a planning application until a period of not less than seven days has elapsed since the erection of the notice.

(5) If the planning application is called in by the Minister or is the subject of an appeal to the Minister or to a person appointed by him the Minister or the person appointed by him (as the case may be) shall not determine such application or appeal without first satisfying himself that a notice in respect of the application has been displayed in the manner prescribed by this section.

(6) Not less than one month and not more than forty days after the final determination of the application the local planning authority shall enter on the land and remove the notice.—[Mr. Macaonald.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Speaker: With this new Clause I propose that the House should discuss new Clause No. 12, Notice of planning applications:
(1) Upon receipt of an application for planning permission the local planning authority shall cause notices thereof to be displayed for not less than 21 days in conspicuous positions in the vicinity of the land which is the subject of the application and such notices shall state the name and address of the clerk to the authority and that written representations may be made to him concerning the application and the names and addresses of the councillor or councillors of the ward in which the land is situated and such other information as the Minister may prescribe.
(2) The local planning authority or their delegate under section 53 of this Act, as the case may be, shall take into account such representations as aforesaid, if any, before determining the application provided that they are received within the period stated for this purpose in the said notices.

Mr. A. H. Macdonald: I beg to move. That the Clause be read a Second time.
I cannot truthfully say that it has been a lifelong ambition of mine to move this Clause, but it has certainly been my ambition for 10 years—ever since I first went on the planning authority of my local authority and discovered, to my amazement, there there is no necessary requirement for the people affected by every proposed development to receive an advance notification when a town planning application comes forward. My amazement has not diminished with the passage of years, but has increased.
In very many cases a development begins, and the first thing that neighbours, and people further away, hear about it is when the building starts going up. When they get in touch with the town hall, they find that planning permission has been given and that nothing can be done. An opportunity should be available for representations to be made. We have been told on many occasions that one of the objects of the Bill is to increase the participation of the ordinary citizens in the decision-making of town planning, so it is perfectly reasonable that those affected by a proposed development should have an opportunty to make reasonable representations to their planning authority. I am conscious that in no sense is it the business of the planning authority to arbitrate—its business is to determine whether or not an application should be permitted —but there should be reasonable opportunity for representations to be brought forward.
I could quote many examples from my correspondence but I will confine myself just to two or three to indicate the kind of grievance that may arise when no advance notification is given to those neighbouring the development concerned in a town planning application. I draw these examples from my own constituency because they are known to me and I have been able to check them. I would not like the House to suppose that I was wasting its time by putting forward merely a constituency point. I could quote examples from outside my constituency, but I think it proper to put forward cases that I am satisfied are genuine.
The first case is that of a lady from Chislehurst who wrote complaining that a development took place next door to her. The first she knew of it was when a bulldozer arrived on the site. As the site is on a slight slope and her house is lower than the development site, all the earth from the bulldozer rolled into her garden. When she telephoned the people of the town hall they told her that planning permission had been given. The building went up on the site. The lady writes:
We now have about four inches between, so it is impossible even to get to that wall of the garage should repair ever be necessary. …
I have no wish to take sides in the matter. The representations of the lady


might on examination prove not well-founded. That, however, is by the way, because whether her representations were well-founded or not, she had no opportunity to put them forward. That is what I might call a standard case.
There is the case of a gentleman from Sidcup who wrote observing that a notice for sale had appeared on a property on the other side of the road to him. This is an old property standing in a fair amount of ground, and he feels, I suspect correctly, that there may be substantial development on the site—perhaps a fairly tall block of flats. He wants to reassure himself that the development will not unduly affect his present amenities. So this poor man is reduced to going minutely through the town planning applications listed each week in the local Press. He lives on tenterhooks lest he should overlook an item and development take place of which he has no knowledge. It seems most unfortunate that a man should have to spend his time in that way. If a notice appeared on the site, as I suggest, his anxiety might well be allayed.
The third case is that of a gentleman from Blackfen who had a vacant site at the end of the garden. Suspecting that development might take place, he went to the offices of the local authority and found that an application was in. He examined the plans. The plans were for an old people's home. He saw that they had no injurious effect whatever on his property, and went home with peace of mind. Some time later the development took place. The gentleman looked over his fence and thought that the development did not seem to be quite in line with his memory of the plans he had seen. He writes that, in fact, different plans have subsequently been approved:
… it is obvious that the original plans were changed although … no announcement either publicly or to the owners of adjacent property was ever made. …
The' final example seems to me to be the most extraordinary of all. It concerns a property in North Cray, in my constituency—a semi-detached house. Behind and to the side of this property planning permission was given for a development. To get access to the

development it was necessary to tear down half of a semi-detached house. This was included in the planning permission. The man living in the other half had no knowledge whatever that all this was going on. Further, I am amazed to discover that he has no statutory right whatever to be informed either by the council or by the developer that half the house in which he lives is to be torn down. The council informed him, but merely as an act of grace; there was no statutory requirement.
7.30 p.m.
There are existing methods of giving publicity to town planning applications, but my contention is that a notice on the site is the only satisfactory method. I will deal with the existing methods because I do not consider that any of them fully meets the situation.
A method which I am glad to say my local authority adopts is to issue a sheet once a week, or every so often, giving brief details of the planning applications which have come in. Local organisations, residents' associations, political parties, and tenants' associations may apply on payment of an annual fee to receive the lists as they are prepared. It will be appreciated, however, that not everyone is or wishes to be a member of a residents' association or a political party.
There is also the difficulty of where the line should be drawn and of deciding which is and which is not a bona fide residents' association. To give an absurd example, suppose my wife and I formed the "79 Oakdene Avenue Residents' Association". Clearly that would be a farce, but how can a local authority distinguish between those which are and those which are not proper residents' associations to which such a notice should be sent?
A method which is quite widely adopted by local authorities is to issue lists of planning applications to the local Press, but the local Press is under no duty to print all or any of the applications. It may be imagined that in any given week some "hot" news may come in and the Press, in finding room for an important item of news, would be tempted to cut out some of the small print of the applications. Not everyone is a close student of the local Press.
Another method which is good so long as it works is for the man who is proposing the development to tell the man next door what he has in mind. When neighbours are on good terms that is excellent; the difficulty arises when they are not on good terms. On those occasions the neighbour is the least likely to be told of the development by the man next door.
The fourth method is for lists of planning applications to be displayed at the town hall, the local library or at similar civic buildings. The first three methods I have described are good although they do not go quite far enough, but the fourth method is definitely bad. This is what not to do because no citizen lives his life going every week to the local library to look at lists of town planning applications in terror that the man next door will build something overlooking his property.
Citizens do not live their life in that way; yet when a development takes place and the citizen concerned protests too late, he is told by the local authority that he could have found out about it if only he had looked at the lists. That produces a feeling of outrage similar to that to which my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council referred when he introduced proposals for a Parliamentary Commissioner. A list of that kind is the façade rather than the reality of democracy.
The local authority may issue a circular to residents in the locality. I quote from a letter I received from the predecessor of my hon. and learned Friend:
In the Department's Circular No. 21/61 planning authorities were asked to make publicly known, by direct notification to persons affected or by local publicity, any application for development which would be of wide general interest.
This is an entirely subjective test and places the responsibility on the local authority to determine what is and what is not of wide general interest. Clearly, a monstrous block of flats is of wide general interest, but a small garage may be of no general interest at all, though it may be of tremendous importance to the man next door to it.
I care nothing for a subjective test made in this way, which places the responsibility on the local authority. In my

view, a notice appearing on the site is the only adequate way to ensure that those affected, or who are likely to be affected, by the development may have proper notification beforehand and an opportunity to make representations.
To save the time of the House, I will demolish some of the objections which I suspect my hon. and learned Friend will bring forward. He can then cross them out of his brief and we can see what he has left. He may argue that it is the responsibility of the councillors on the local authority to represent the interests of the people of the area. That is excellent in theory, but in my local authority, the London Borough of Bromley, there are 70 members, and the town planning committee has only 23. Therefore, not every one is represented on the town planning committee.
Because there are so many applications, the town planning authority is unable to deal with all of them and it has split into sub-committees of seven. Even that has proved too many and panels of three have been appointed. Some planning applications are considered by only three councillors. I do not criticise my local authority for doing that, for it has a large number of applications, but not every councillor is in a position to make representations.
My hon. and learned Friend may suggest that some of the representations which are made prove groundless or frivolous, or even spiteful, but in my knowledge and experience some will prove well grounded. I think of one application which came before us and which we were minded to approve. Then a letter came from the man next door and we discovered that, although the plan attached to the application was entirely accurate so far as it concerned the site, it was inaccurate because the next door property was appreciably nearer than the plan suggested. I give that as an example of a kind of reasonable representation which may be submitted.
I accept that my proposal would involve a measure of delay, but, since once a planning application has been made the resulting development may be there for 50 or 100 years, it does not seem unreasonable to allow a week or two for people in the area to have an opportunity to make their views known. There is also the question of cost. I understand that there


are 400,000 town planning applications a year. To put up notices on every site would involve a measure of expenditure. This, of course, cannot rest on the developer for we have to remember that the purpose of giving notice of the development is to give an opportunity for anyone who objects to do so and this may prevent the development being carried out.
If the developer had to put up a notice he might be tempted to hide it behind a bush where no one would see it. The responsibility must rest on the local authority. I have had discussions with people in my district and with the Chislehurst Residents' Association. They accept that they should bear the cost. Because this is something they want, they are prepared to pay for it. That is a reasonable attitude.
In some cases under our existing arrangements there is an obligation to notify people of proposed developments. This is so where we can define certain categories. So far so good. But if we accept, as we must, that in some categories it is proper for people affected to be informed, how can we say that it is possible to draw a rational line between those who ought to be informed and those who need not be informed? As I have tried to show, even the smallest development may be grievous for the amenities of the man next door.
I shall take another minute or two now to refer briefly to the text of the new Clause. In the main, it is self-explanatory. The House will note that I have asked that written consent should be obtained from the owner of the land. I suspect that, in practice, this will prove to be a time-saving provision. If a would-be developer has to obtain written consent from the owner of the land before he can put in his application, this will save the time of the town planning authorities in considering applications which in the event turn out to be abortive because developers cannot obtain ownership of the land and cannot, therefore, proceed with the development they want.
As regards regulations, I have suggested that the Minister should have power to prescribe the form and size of the notice. I hope that in such regulations he would require a simple statement on the lines of the familiar "To let" or "For

sale" notice, not a close typescript giving details of the application. It should be a simple wording with which people would become familiar, so that they would be alerted to approach the offices of the local authority.
Next, I have suggested that there should be a period of between 30 and 40 days before the notice is removed. I regard this as necessary in order to provide for the possibility of appeal against the development. The notice ought not to be taken down too soon. I have had constituents complain to me that they thought that a scheme had been cut and dried by the local authority and then, suddenly, the whole thing was thrown into the melting-pot again so that they ought to make further representations. So long as the notice is on the site, they will be aware that the matter is open and that representations are possible. That is the reason for the period of between 30 and 40 days.
I am sorry to have taken so long, but this is a matter which has been burning in me for the last 10 years, ever since I went on the planning committee of my local authority. I am aware of the objections, but I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will accept at least the principle of my proposal.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that we have many new Clauses and many Amendments to consider. It would help the House if they were moved with reasonable brevity.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Lubbock: I promise that I shall not say more than a few words, but I wish to support the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) in his admirable proposal which he put forward in an admirable speech, which, I am sure, convinced both sides of its merits. I shall not give a great many examples, but I confirm that my experience is parallel with that of the hon. Gentleman.
Time after time, at one's advice bureaux, people come and say, "Here is something which is very harmful to the amenities of the area where we live and to our own property in particular. We knew nothing about it until the builders arrived on the site and the development began. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, so long as we limit ourselves


to the means which he described, people will inevitably not be aware of development which is about to take place. They do not all read the Orpington and Kentish Times, which circulates in his constituency and in mine and in which one can find quite long lists of planning applications submitted.
In my view, the Kentish Times is to be congratulated on the public service which it does in devoting space to these applications. But there is a host of them in small print, and it is quite possible for a householder, watching the lists to ensure that nothing is proposed which might affect his property, to miss the particular issue, or not to see an application which is of great significance for himself. He might be away on holiday at the time when notice of the particular application appeared in the local paper, with the result that he would have no knowledge of it.
The hon. Gentleman's proposal would be both simple and inexpensive compared with the means adopted now. If the number of applications is as large as he says, notices in the prescribed form could be mass-produced and be no more expensive than, for example, the 30 m.p.h. speed limit sign which is already in use in large numbers. The Minister should not, therefore, object on grounds of expense. Moreover, as the hon. Gentleman said, the proposed procedure might well result in some saving because abortive applications would not have to be considered if applicants had to obtain the consent of the owner of the land in the first place.
Here is one case from my constituency which upset me greatly. Adjacent to the property of a lady living in the village of Farnborough it was proposed to erect an electricity line. The proposal went through and the work began, but she happened to notice that the poles were being put much closer to the boundaries of her property than the position shown in the original plan. Being a lady of some spirit, she objected vigorously to the workers who were putting up the poles and said that they did not correspond with the original plan.
After considerable trouble with the local authority and the Ministry of Power, we succeeded in having the application by the electricity board recon-

sidered. The matter has now gone all the way through the London Borough of Bromley and the Greater London Council to the Ministry of Power, so that it now lies on the Minister's desk for him to see whether the position of the line ought to have been varied or the original line ought to have been adhered to.
If that lady had not noticed what was happening—if, for example, she had been away on holiday at the time—the scheme might have gone through in the altered form and there would have been nothing she could do about it. I am happy to say that the Minister of Power is giving full consideration to the objections which she has made, but the matter might well have gone the other way. That is an example showing the need for a procedure of the kind described by the hon. Member for Chislehurst. If the electricity board had been compelled to put a notice on the site that it intended to vary the route of the line, my constituent would have known at once and would have been able to take action much earlier.
I am sorry to take more time, but I must mention one other example. A constituent of mine living in the village of Cudham was surprised to find that a building was being erected by his neighbour adjacent to his boundary, and this building came within six feet of his cesspool. We are still fairly primitive in some parts of my constituency and we do not all have main drainage, I do not have it myself. My constituent had always thought that there was a rule that one did not erect buildings within 20 feet of a cesspool, and he went round to the local authority to ask how it happened that his neighbour was putting up an extension to his house which came within six feet of his cesspool.
The local authority said, "We are very sorry, but you are too late. It is within all the byelaws. There is nothing we can do about it. The health inspectors have been out and they say that it is quite within the regulations. You will have to put up with it".
As a result of the erection of that building, not only is my constituent hemmed in by a large structure at the side of his property but all the water now comes off that building and flows into his cesspool, with the result that it has to be emptied very much more frequently than in the past. As the hon.


Member for Chislehurst knows, charges for the emptying of cesspools in the London Borough of Bromley are increased almost without limit. I sometimes think that the matter ought to be referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.
Because my constituent knew nothing of the proposal, he could not go down and argue with the town planning department before it actually happened. Now, he has this large building next door to him, which everyone says is within the building regulations, and he has no power to do anything about it
Those are two cases out of many dozens which have come to my notice during the past year. The Minister of State ought to accept the hon. Gentleman's proposal, which offers a sensible and reasonable way of making sure that that kind of thing happens no more.

Mr. MacDermot: This debate alarms me in its projected length. As Mr. Speaker said a moment ago, we have a great deal of work to get through.
The subject matter of the new Clause was discussed at considerable length in Committee, and I do not wish to have to repeat all the arguments I put forward there. I have not heard a new argument in principle in the two speeches so far. They were all put in Committee, and I would refer hon. Members to the OFFICIAL REPORT for the answer to any of their arguments which they feel have not been answered sufficiently here.
I think that there is a case to be looked at, but, with respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald), I think that he has greatly exaggerated. What he proposes is utterly unworkable. The first subsection of his Clause would practically bring development in this country to a full stop, because it would mean that no one could make a planning application for land which he or she did not own without the consent of the owner. This would mean that my hon. Friend's own authority, or any other housing authority which was not a planning authority, that wanted to put in a planning application in respect of undeveloped land would not be able to do so unless the owner of that land consented to their doing

so. It gives the owners of land an absolute veto on development.
I think that my hon. Friend voted for and supported the Land Commission Act, which gives the Commission considerable powers to put in planning applications and apply for compulsory purchase orders for land. All of this would be rendered nugatory by the new Clause. If my hon. Friend has been cogitating on the matter for 10 years, I am surprised that he has not thought out a little more carefully the implications of the new Clause.
What my hon. Friend is saying is very simple—that no one should be allowed to apply for planning permission to do any kind of development unless the application is brought to the notice of every person who might in any way be affected by it, and then there is a sort of litigation. I see my hon. Friend shaking his head, but what is the point of telling a neighbour that the application is in unless the neighbour is to have some rights to be heard? The neighbour will say, "This is a farce. What is the point of writing in a statutory right for me to be notified if I cannot make representations to anybody?" Therefore, in effect the planning authority would become judge in litigation between quarrelsome neighbours, for it is particularly with quarrelsome neighbours that these sort of difficulties arise. This is not my conception of what planning is about.
Before we had town and country planning anyone was entitled, subject to the laws of nuisance, to do what he wanted on his own land and erect what buildings or carry out whatever other developments he wanted on it. That has been altered by planning law. We have set up planning authorities with qualified staffs whose job it is to apply planning control and to give or refuse permission according to accepted planning principles. They are democratically elected bodies, and are responsible for what they do.
Agreed, there are classes of development which, of their nature, are such that they will affect the character of an area, or otherwise affect a very large number of people, and where it is right that people should be given an opportunity for representations. In Standing Committee—and this covers some columns of HANSARD—I set out the very numerous and full provisions covering that kind of case. I have undertaken that when we


review them I shall be willing to look at any additions to those classes which may be proposed.
To try to turn the whole of our planning machinery into a kind of quasi-judicial organisation for listening to disputes between neighbours would be very time-consuming for the staff, who are busy, expert staff, and would involve a great deal of additional cost. What could well come from it? If there is an empty plot of land next-door to a house, it is 100 to I that the owner of the house will object to its being developed. He would prefer it left empty, particularly if it gives him a view. But the planning authority must decide on planning principles whether it is right that that piece of land should be developed. Why should it be compelled to receive representations—for this would be the result of the procedure suggested—when it must know already that the person next door would prefer that the development did not take place? Therefore, I would strongly resist anything as universal as is suggested.
One of the criticisms made in Committee was that in these special classes of development one needs additional procedures for safeguarding the public. I said then, and repeat now, that we need to look at these criticisms. The form of notice required by law is just notification, usually in the local press, by a formal announcement, which is not read, except by professional bodies who find it worth their time to study such notices. There is in at least some of these cases, if not all, a case for extending the provisions about putting up notices. This is something we shall have power to do under a general development order.
I undertake that we shall look again at these provisions under the general development: order to consider improved notification by a notice on or near the site. That dispenses with the need for the owner's consent. If he will not consent to its going up on his land, it is stuck on a lamp post nearby or something like that. We shall consider an extension of that, and also to look again at any particular cases hon. Members draw to my attention which they think should be added to the special classes requiring notification. I invite them \o write to me if they wish.
I am certain that to adopt the suggestion in the new Clause and make

it apply universally to every one of the 400,000 planning applications a year many of which are over quite minor matters, will involve an incredible waste of time of skilled staff, who are in short supply, and to very little benefit.

Mr. Murton: I believe the Minister to be peculiarly intractable tonight. He says that the proposals should not be put into effect either in the form in the new Clause suggested by the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) or in the form suggested by my right and hon Friends and myself in new Clause 12.
It is not sufficient to deal with this planning problem through Ministerial circular, which is how it is done at present. The Minister says that the proposal would cause difficulty. If the clerks of local authorities were to comply with the circular to the letter of the law, there would indeed already be not much difference in the amount of work undertaken, than if the Clause were accepted but they do not always avail themselves of the guidance which the Minister gives in that circular.
One can judge from the feeling which has been aroused in the House on this question that it is a major issue affecting our citizens. It is a cliche to say that every man's home is his castle, but it is true that everybody is peculiarly sensitive —quite rightly so—to the effects which other people's development have on his home. The way to avoid litigation is to give the individual the chance to make representation when his neighbour does something.
8.0 p.m.
I cannot see that this raises a quasi-judicial problem because the council or officer delegated under Clause 53 has only to read the representations put in. If he does not agree with them, all he has to do is to say so. That means that the aggrieved neighbour will at least know that his representations have been considered and are understood. It is much better to provide that a notice should be displayed upon the property in a prominent manner than that a neighbour should find out by chance—by rumour, for example, or from his councillor—that there is something afoot.
Under new Clause 12, councillors would have a part to play in the system. Of course, councillors are busy people


and many wards are very large. But if these notices were displayed prominently, anyone failing to read them would have only themselves to blame if ultimately some development took place. I cannot see what extra work and difficulty there would be. If a notice were put on property stating that a person wished to apply for the erection of a garage, it could conceivably affect the next door neighbour but not the whole street.
On the other hand, a proposed development could affect a whole street. In my local authority, if there is a major project it is the council's policy to circularise the owners of adjacent properties so that they may know what is to happen. They are invited to state their views. The hon. and learned Gentleman must not be so intractable over this point. If he cannot go the whole way on the issue, let him give an undertaking that he will do something about it and not just hide behind his remark about the quasi-judicial position.

Mr. MacDermot: I have given it.

Mr. Murton: But on his own admission the hon. and learned Gentleman will only do it in the case of major schemes. We want the individual to have the right to know what is going on in his road and that is the least that the Government should give to the people.

Mr. E. Rowlands: We discussed this matter very fully in Committee, where I exhausted my own personal examples. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will be glad to know that. I, too, am surprised that, once again, he has taken a hard line on the issue. He says that he will consider whether classes of application should have to be notified but, as he admitted in Committee, these cover only a small area of planning by comparison with the sort of cases we are considering here. There is need for additional forms of notification where the individual is concerned with individual planning applications.
My hon. and learned Friend says that he has heard the arguments before. We certainly had them in Committee. In new Clause 9 we have tried to meet some of the points he raised then. In particular, we have tried to meet that

objection—although I think new Clause 12 does it better—about a quasi-judicial element which would be foreign to our legislation.
I liked the idea, put by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) in Committee and now again in new Clause 12, that we should bring local councils into this process. This gets over the argument about the serving of a written notice and about the quasi-judicial proceedings which would have to follow. New Clause 12 suggests that, after the notice, individuals who wish to make certain representations should do so in the normal way through their local council.
I see no great principle in this simple proposal that would shake town and country planning. It is argued that there are thousands of applications and that this proposal would cause delay. But the mere fact that there are thousands of applications shows the importance of the matter. In the vast majority of cases, individuals are affected and come into contact with planning only on these small matters. We should not lose the opportunity of the Bill to provide some additions to the safeguards to the individual whose property may be affected by planning applications.

Mr. Frederick Silvester: I want to take up the Minister of State's challenge, not once more to go over the arguments which were put in Committee, but to read something which he said in Committee and to develop my argument from that. One of his strongest arguments in Committee was that people should not be given the impression that they had a right which they did not possess. He said:
We must draw a distinction between the objection which is merely an objection based on one's own private property interests and the objection which is on grounds of real planning policy which involve planning principles."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 30th April, 1968; c. 1205.]
But I suggest that that is not a real distinction. For most planning authorities, the applications come in fairly thick and fast and are decided upon very local matters, one of these being the extent to which the planning authority receives representations against them. The rights the hon. and learned Gentleman talks about are rights which arise not so much


on grounds of law, but on grounds of chance—lor example, whether someone happens for some reason to have heard of a planning application. We may say that there is a right or not, and may set it down in statute. But it is not a proper decision for us to take to allow procedure to continue in which a right may happen to some man but not to another merely through the operation of chance.
The Minister of State has made some concessions and I understand that he is willing to look at the circumstances set out in c. 1186 of THE OFFICIAL REPORT of Standing Committee G. But they cover only a limited range at the moment— things like the disposal of refuse, slaughter houses, knackers' yards and Turkish baths. He may have in mind some extensions but these are not the sort of planning applications most of us are talking about. We are talking about minor things which may nevertheless have a major influence upon the people who happen to live next door.
The hon. and learned Gentleman's major objection—and we sympathise with him—has always been that we would gum up the works by this proposal and that the whole machinery would grind to a grisly halt. But in new Clause 12 we have tried to provide machinery—simpler than that proposed in new Clause 9— which is pre-eminently simple. It does not involve long and complicated participation of third parties in planning applications. It provides a simple machinery whereby they might get to know what was going on. At that point, they could write to their councillor, who would then make their representations known. If those representations were groundless, the council would treat them as such and award the application on straightforward grounds of planning principle. It may be that neighbours will have a genuine point to make and they will be able to make it in a written application.
We are not seeking to extend it. There is no suggestion in this Clause that we should involve them in questions of appeal. While that has been mooted, it would be going much too far, and would take things to absurd lengths. This is a much simpler procedure, and seems eminently reasonable. It is certainly worth a try. If the Minister were to argue, as he did in Committee, that it would snow-

ball and demand more participation, then that is a time for him to argue that it has gone far enough and should be stopped. Let us deal with the specific problem that most of us are facing with a specific remedy. I cannot see why he cannot go that little bit further and accept new Clause 12, if not the rather more extensive new Clause 9.

Mr. Tony Gardner: I appreciate that my hon. and learned Friend is pressed for time, but we are now discussing the right of an individual to protect his rights and property against encroachment by another private individual.

Mr. MacDermot: What rights of encroachment is my hon. Friend talking about?

Mr. Gardner: I hope to quote a simple case in a moment. We assume that an individual has the right to defend himself. I am not suggesting that there is an existing right in law, but here we have an individual seeking to defend his rights against encroachment. We must find time to discuss these problems. I appreciate the concession that my hon. and learned Friend made when he said that he would look at the extension in certain directions, but I hope that he can be persuaded to go a little further. All of us who have been in public life know that this area of planning causes more trouble than anything else. I would suggest that the costs of this procedure would not be greater when one remembers the costs incurred by local authorities already.
I want to mention one simple case that occurred recently in my constituency, when a constituent purchased a very nice bungalow in a quiet residential area. He did so to get away from the hurly-burly of the town centre, and paid a great deal of money for the bungalow. Shortly he discovered that works were going on on the site next door. Upon inquiry he found that a two-storey block of flats was being erected. He protested vigorously, but he had not a leg to stand on, because he had protested too late.
Having given up the struggle, he went away on holiday for a fortnight. When he returned he discovered that on top of the second floor, to which he had objected, a third floor was being erected. While he had been on holiday there had been an application for a variation of the consent, and a third storey was going up,


with picture windows looking straight into his bedroom, only a matter of feet away. At this stage he came to me, and of course there was nothing that I could do. One would not dream of criticising the local council, because it was acting expressly within the law. Indeed, if it had changed its mind, it would have been involved in very expensive compensation.
I must accept my hon. and learned Friend's argument in relation to subsection (1) of the new Clause. We do not want to bodge up the machinery by spreading out the time-scale for planning applications. We are talking about a period of seven days and a fairly simple procedure. While I appreciate that many of these planning applications are small items, there are larger items, more exceptional, which cause considerable public outcry. The cost of this will not be very great. As I have suggested it will be largely overcome by taking into account the existing costs to which local authorities are put.
There is a distinction to be drawn between the wealthy organisation and the humble individual. If it is a wealthy organisation, or community association, then clearly it will have its own contacts with the council, it will have people scanning the council minutes and watching notice boards. The ordinary individual does not have such opportunities. There is a case, in justice, for the small individual to be distinguished from the large organisation. Whatever the difficulties are about this new Clause, I ask my hon. and learned Friend to reconsider his earlier reply in the context of the flood of inquiries and complaints which we all get as Members of Parliament. If he will accept something like this, he will become a national hero overnight.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I congratulate the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Mac-donald) on raising this matter. I do not congratulate him on his drafting or upon his arguments, but he has certainly given us a very good debate on an important subject. The House cannot disregard the demand from the public that those affected by planning applications should be enabled to make their voice heard in some way before the local planning authority. We as individual Mem-

bers cannot disregard this demand: we have it every week. Every Member gets correspondence on this when development is affecting a constituent or is to take place.
The Minister cannot disregard this demand, as has been shown by the weighty pleading in the house. It is a matter of particular importance in the future having regard to the power of the local planning authority to delegate its functions in dealing with planning applications. This will make the public feel that not even their own councillor knows anything about it, but that it is in the hands of an official. They will not know anything about it, and will feel that the council knows nothing about it. It will not necessarily be true, but this will be the general feeling of the public in future when powers are delegated.
There is no doubt that it is desirable that people should be made aware of planning applications and able to make their voice heard. Is it practical? How can the notice be given? If subsection (1) of this new Clause is not quite practical, does it really matter at this stage? There is a very practical one in new Clause 12. If the Minister likes to substitute one for the other when it gets to another place, that will be all right. We want to see this in the Bill now. We want an assurance that this will happen, and that the Clause will be tidied up later.
At present, one way that the public is notified, if it is one of those harmful types of development coming within Section 15 of the Act, is when there is a Press notice, and in this case I acknowledge that the Minister has given an undertaking to look at this again, and perhaps extend Section 15 to make the notice more effective. This is not enough. It does not meet the case of the ordinary development in the ordinary street.
Then there is Section 16 of the 1962 Act, where notice has to be given by service upon the owners or agricultural tenants, if either of those is not the applicant for planning permission. Otherwise neighbours are not likely to know about a development until it starts. It may be that the requirement of notice on the land on every occasion is impractical. Notice in the vicinity of the land, on the lamposts in the street, is one of the most effective ways of telling people what is


happening. I do not think that it can be denied that it is impractical to let members of the public know.
Secondly, having been informed, what are they to do with the information? If they use the information, will they "gum up" the works of planning? I am not using the Minister's words, but that is, in effect, what he suggested—that if the neighbours or anyone else were allowed to make representations it would make planning impossible. I do not think that that is so. Written notice to the local planning authority of the objection and warning one's local councillor and putting him on his guard to see what is happening on behalf of his constituents is always necessary with an obligation such as we mentioned in new Clause No. 12, that the local planning authority shall consider the representations before coming to a decision.
I do not suggest a hearing or litigation between the parties. I merely suggest that those affected by planning applications should have the right to make representations to the people who have to decide them. Nor do I want to produce property rights. This is where the hon. Member for Chislehurst went wrong. He argued too much for the protection of property rights which do not exist. There is no right to a view. There is no right to privacy. Those are not legal rights. We should not use town planning law for that purpose. Certainly we should use it for the protection of the amenities of a district and of a community, even if the community is only a road, but not necessarily for the protection of individual rights of property.
It is rather a legalistic argument to try to distinguish between the rights of the individual property owner and the rights of a neighbourhood. We can leave such matters to the local planning authority to decide when it receives the representations. Do not let us lay down rules about this. Let people send in any objections they like, and let us leave it to the good sense of the local planning authority and the officer whom it appoints to consider these matters to

Division No. 147.]
AYES
[8.24 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barfcston Ash)
Bessell, Peter
Bossom, Sir Clive


AHason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Biffen, John
Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter


Astor, John
Biggs-Davison, John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Bruce-Gardyne, J.


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Boardman, Tom
Buck, Antony (Colchester)

decide whether it is a good objection and whether development should be stopped because the neighbour objects to being overlooked. But let the neighbour make that representation and put forward his objections, and give him the opportunity to do it by giving him notice.

Although I should not be satisfied with the drafting of either new Clause No. 9 or new Clause No. 12, I want to see this provision in the Bill now and let it be tidied up later.

Mr. Macdonald: I assure my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State that I was aware that this matter had been discussed in Committee, and I read the report of the proceedings there with great interest and attention. But I am not aware that it is wrong for any hon. Member to be assiduous in pressing something about which he feels strongly, however many times it has been discussed. Many reforms might have fallen by the wayside if the reformers had been faint-hearted.
Since both Front Benches have told me that my draftsmanship is no good, it is as well that I am not vain about my capacity in that respect, and I had better not say anything about it. However, I should like to say a few words about the principle behind what is involved in these proposals. This is nothing to do with litigation, quasi-judicial or otherwise. Citizens are perfectly well aware that it is councillors on local planning authorities who determine town planning applications. But they would like their views to be made known to those councillors before a decision is made. That is all that is involved in these proposals. I thought that that was what the Bill was about—local participation.
I very much regret that my hon. and learned Friend should suggest that this sort of thing was a waste of time. I cannot regard it as a waste of time.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time: —

The House divided: Ayes 109, Noes 152.

Bullus, Sir Eric
Kershaw, Anthony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Burden, F. A.
Kirk, Peter
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Cary, Sir Robert
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Channon, H. P. G.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Clegg, Walter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Cooke, Robert
Lubbock, Eric
Russell, Sir Ronald


Costain, A. P.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Scott, Nicholas


Crouch, David
Macdonald, A. H.
Sharples, Richard


Currie, G. B. H.
Marten, Neil
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Dance, James
Maude, Angus
Silvester, Frederick


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Mawby, Ray
Sinclair, Sir George


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Eden, Sir John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Speed, Keith


Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Stainton, Keith


Emery, Peter
More, Jasper
Tapsell, Peter


Errington, Sir Eric
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Eyre, Reginald
Munro-Lucac-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcarl)


Farr, John
Murton, Oscar
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Fletcher-cooke, Charles
Nabarro, Sir Cerald
Temple, John M.


Foster, 8ir John
Onslow, Cranley
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Goodhew, Victor
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Tilney, John


Grant, Anthony
Pardoe, John
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Percival, Ian
Ward, Dame Irene


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Peyton, John
Webster, David


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pink, R. Bonner
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hill, J. E. B.
Pounder, Rafton
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Holland, Philip
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Iremonger, T. L.
Pym, Francis
Wright, Esmond


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Quennell, Miss J. M.




Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jennings. J. C. (Burton)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Mr. Timothy Kitson and




Mr. Hector Monro.




NOES


Allen, Scholefleld
Freeson, Reginald
Newens, Stan


Armstrong, Ernest
Galpem, Sir Myer
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Gardner, Tony
Norwood. Christopher


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Garrett, W. E.
Ogden, Eric


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Gregory, Arnold
O'Malley, Brian


Barnett, Joel
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Orbach, Maurice


Beaney, Alan
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Orme, Stanley


Bidwell, Sydney
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Blackburn, F.
Hamilton, James (Bothwetl)
Owen Will (Morpeth)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hamling, William
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hannan, William
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Boyden, James
Harper, Joseph
Park, Trevor


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Haseldine, Norman
Pavitt, Laurence


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Henig, Stanley
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Pentland, Norman


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow. Provan)
Hooley, Frank
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Horner, John
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)



Buchan, Norman
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Buchanan, Richard (C'gow, Sp'burn) 
 Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Robinson, w. 0. J. (Walth'stow,E.)


Carmichael, Neil
Hunter, Adam
Roebuck, Roy


Chapman, Donald
Hynd, John
Rose, Paul


Coe, Denis
Irvine, Sir Arthur
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jay. Rt. Hn. Douglas
Sheldon, Robert


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Kelley, Richard
Silkin, Rt. Hn. Jotin (Deptford)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Kenyon, Clifford
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lawson, George
Skeffington, Arthur


Dempsey, James
Lee, Rt, Hn. Frederick (Newton) 
 Slater, Joseph


Dewar, Donald
Loughlin, Charles
small, William


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Loyn, Alexander W. (York)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dickens James
MacDermot, Niall
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Doig, Peter
Mackenzie Gregor (Rutherglen)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Dunnett Jack
Mackintosh, John P.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) 
McNamara, J. Kevin
Swingler, Stephen


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Symonds, J. B.


Eadie, Alex
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Taveme, Dick


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Marks, Kenneth
Thornton, Ernest


Ellis John
Marquand, David
Tinn, James


English, Michael
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Urwin, T. W.


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mavhew, Christopher
Varley, Eric G.


Fernyhough, E.
Mendelson, J. J.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Millan, Bruce
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wallace, George


Fowler, Gerry
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Moyle, Roland
WatKins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)

Whitlock, William
Winnick, David



Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch) 
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A. 
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Woof, Robert
Mr. J. D. Concannon and


Wilson, William (Coventry, S.) 
Yates, Victor
Mr. Harry Gourlay.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The next new Clause is No. 10.

Mr. Murton: On a point of order. Would you agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we should have a vote on new Clause 12 which was coupled with new Clause 9?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. It has not been selected for a Division. It was selected only for debate.

New Clause 10.

DAMAGE BY SURFACE WATER TO LAND.

(1) A Planning Authority shall not consent to an application for planning permission unless they are first satisfied that the applicant or some other person has made suitable arrangements for the disposal or discharge of the extra flow of water which may reasonably be expected to derive from the creation or extension of an impermeable area covering any part or all of the land in respect of which the application is made (in this subsection referred to as the ' relevant land ') and which might otherwise be expected to cause or increase flooding or waterlogging of other land (in this section referred to as the ' affected land').

(2) In this section 'suitable arrangements' means an agreement between the applicant and the owners or occupiers and such other persons as may have any compensatable interest in the affected land by which the applicants as soon as may be after or before the carrying out of the development of the relevant land contracts either to undertake or to contribute an agreed amount towards the cost of undertaking works designed to minimise or eliminate damage or injury attributable to such flooding or waterlogging or both.

(3) Any condition made pursuant to this section and attaching to a planning permission shall be enforceable by the Planning Authority notwithstanding that it may relate to land outside the relevant land.

(4) Any person who owned, occupied or was possessed of a compensatable interest in the affected land at the date of the granting of the planning permission for the relevant land and who complains to the Planning Authority that he has suffered or can reasonably be expected to suffer material injury as a result of the failure of the Planning Authority to comply or to have complied with the requirement imposed upon them by subsection (1) of this section, shall be entitled to claim compensation therefrom in respect of the damage suffered to that person's interest in the affected land.—[Mr. Clegg.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Walter Clegg: In 0normal circumstances, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would have made a long and powerful speech—[HON. MEMBERS: "Carry on."]—but I am, unfortunately, one of those hon. Members who are closeted in a Committee Room—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]—and so I shall ask my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) to move the Second Reading of this Clause and to deploy the arguments which otherwise I would myself have put for the Clause

Mr. Murton: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Clause deals with something which has the extraordinary name of urban run-off. It is essentially a matter for the farming community, although the same problem arises to a lesser degree amongst urban dwellers. The cause of the problem is usually a housing development or the creation, widening, or re-cambering of metalled highways. The surfaces become basically impermeable, and the water which flows upon them is not absorbed and tends thereafter to flow on to other land which becomes waterlogged. There is at present no machinery whereby this matter can be controlled by the local authority.
The water which runs off the surfaces is, in some cases, in agricultural areas swollen by discharge from septic tanks and it overcharges into a ditch or stream. The capacity of the stream is limited by the diameter or the level of a culvert which was never designed for the additional flow of water which, through urban development or the re-cambering of roads, now occurs. A serious problem may also arise where the backing up of streams occurs, to the detriment of riparian land for a considerable distance up the watercourse.
The problem has in the past been explored by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Housing, on the last occasion in July 1960. At that time it was suggested that Section 7 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951, and Section 37 of the Public Health Act, 1936, together with remedies available at


common law, should give adequate protection to anyone suffering injury through the increase in run-off.
The National Farmers' Union, quite rightly, were not satisfied with the answer which was given to them by the two Ministries. Section 7 of the 1951 Act was never designed to deal with this problem. It deals with storm water overflows, and it was meant to operate only in the case of a substantial flow discharged directly into a main river. Section 37 of the Public Health Act, 1936 imposes a duty on local authorities to reject plans for buildings or extensions of buildings unless satisfactory provision for drainage has been made, but basically it deals with public health and safety.
As a result of the dissatisfaction with those answers, the National Farmers' Union drafted a new Clause to the Land Drainage Bill, which was presented in the appropriate Committee in 1961. The Government gave a number of reasons for rejecting the proposal. Apart from what I have already said, the third suggestion was that the objection to the discharge of water from highways on to farm land would be met by the provisions of Section 103 of the Highways Act, 1959. But, when it was looked into, it was found to be merely a consolidating Measure and that the Act had been on the Statute Book since 1835, so that it was not of much help to anyone.
Finally, the Minister decided that the best way to deal with the problem was by means of a Government circular, and he issued Circular 52/62 entitled, "Liaison between planning authorities and river boards". Paragraph 13 of the circular referred to the representations made on the subject and specifically asked planning authorities
… to bear this in mind when considering applications for development near agricultural property to ensure that satisfactory arrangements are made for dealing with surface water run-off.
Again, that was not sufficient to meet the problem. The N.F.U. does not consider that the availability of a common law right of action against upstream discharges is a satisfactory solution—and that is the only other possible solution to the problem—mainly because of the uncertainty caused by the costs and delays attendant on a common law action and,

basically, because one cannot institute such an action until after the damage has been done. For that reason, the N.F.U. has attempted on a number of occasions to persuade Members of Parliament to produce adequate legislation to put an end to the problem.
In a recent debate, on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, it was admitted by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture to be a planning problem. It is a planning problem, and this might be considered to be the correct Bill in which to incorporate a clause putting an end to it by making it a positive duty on planning authorities and not merely a discretionary power not to grant planning consent unless it is satisfied that provision has been made for the disposal of surface and imported water in a fashion which will not injure other land, and also to oblige authorities to make it a condition of the granting of planning consent where run-off will be discharged on to land. In other words, first of all a developer must satisfy the authority that no damage will be caused and, secondly, that suitable arrangements will be made to deal with any discharge without detriment to third parties.
That is the agricultural side of it, but there is the secondary problem in connection with individual householders which affects an urban constituency like my own, where a developer banks up a road to a certain standard that he is under contract to build by order of the local authority before he develops a piece of land. I have had cases in my constituency where water has banked up behind such a road and flooded people's gardens. There have been cases where developers have turned more water into an existing culvert than it can stand. I have know other cases where developers have bulldozed ditches out of existence so that water has no means of draining away.
If this Clause, or something like it were to be incorporated into the Bill, we on this side consider that it would go a considerable way towards meeting the case of the N.F.U., which represents the agricultural interests of the country, and also deal with the problems of the citizen living in an urban environment. For that reason, I hope that the Minister will accept the Clause in its present form.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Skeffington: The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Murton), in his interesting speech said, I thought a little too pessimistically or inaccurately, that there was no adequate machinery by which a local authority could deal with the situation which the new Clause is designed to prevent. On reflection, I think he will realise that this is not so. The major movements of water are the statutory responsibility of the river boards, both in relation to the flow of large-scale water and main drainage. The river boards are charged by Parliament to consider these matters the whole time. They are not so concerned with the minor works which come within the general responsibility of local authorities. It would be wrong for the impression to go out from this House that this matter is dealt with only casually or by chance, because there is extensive legislation.
I agree that there is a problem where there is development and where perhaps large areas of the surface become impervious, by reason of foundations or road works, or whatever it may be, and water saturates where it would not normally have done, being diverted through other causes. This is where the first line of defence comes into operation under the existing law.
The local planning authority is under a duty, when giving planning permission, to consider carefully all the material circumstances specified in Section 17(1) of the principal Act. It is a matter of material concern whether a development is likely to cause the kind of difficulties to which reference has been made— particularly flooding. These are proper planning matters, and the authority, not only when considering planning permission but when considering the consequences of planning permission, has to bear in mind its existing and proposed drainage in the vicinity.
It is important to realise that this is the responsibility of several bodies, acting under various statutes, and that it is generally satisfactorily discharged. Nevertheless, new developments sometimes may get ahead of proposed drainage works, and this has to be continually borne in mind by the authorities.
In 1962, during the life of the previous Administration, the attention of local

authorities and river boards was drawn to a joint circular issued by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Ministry of Agriculture dealing with this problem, because it is of paramount importance. In the past, though I doubt whether this is so today, it had not been given sufficient attention.
The first point, therefore, is that there is a problem, but, broadly speaking, there is adequate machinery to deal with it. However, because it is a growing problem, we propose to draw the attention of local authorities to it again. I have the first draft of a circular which is being discussed with the Ministry of Agriculture and which will in due course be discussed with the local authority associations. Although the machinery is there, one wants to be sure that local authorities realise that the speed of development today, the record number of houses being built and so on and the consequent road systems, is bound to have a considerable effect on rainfall and the diversion of water from the land which it would normally saturate.
In addition, there are two features of the new Clause which would be a breach of what have hitherto been considered very important planning principles. The first is contained in subsection (3) which, almost for the first time, would allow a condition made by a planning authority to be attached not to the applicant's land but to somebody else's land. This is quite outside the planning Acts. The only existing circumstances in which a condition may be applied to land which is not the applicant's land are those provided for in Section 18(1) of the principal Act, but in those circumstances, where a condition is attached to other land, that other land must be in the ownership or under the supervision of the developer. That is quite right.
Hon. Members have only to think of a situation in which A is a developer and B, who lives next door, is affected by the development; A makes a planning application, and the application is granted on condition that B carries out certain works. The problems of enforcement if B objects would be tremendous. Why should not he object? In those circumstances, the position of the planning authority would become ridiculous. Public opinion would not support the extension of the principle as laid down


in subsection (3) of the new Clause. I am glad to have the enthusiastic support of hon. Members opposite. I hope that it will be extended in the Lobbies if the matter is pressed to a Division.
Subsection (4) contains an equally undesirable principle. The Clause makes it a statutory obligation upon a local authority not to permit development unless it is satisfied about the provisions made for run-off, and it is suggested in subsection (4) that any consequent damage, owing to the fact that the provisions made are not adequate, should be borne by the ratepayers. This, again, is a new principle, which I am sure would not find support in the minds and hearts of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
If a person's development damages the land of another person that other person can go to court and claim damage. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) will remember the immortal case of Rylands v. Fletcher. Amongst its other propositions, the Bill is proposing to overturn this principle and to substitute a novel proposal under which the ratepayers would make good any damage that might arise on the land of another person. That is quite wrong. The position must be that he who reaps the benefit should pay for any damage caused. It is the developer who is benefiting and not the ratepayers.
For these reasons it is clear that subsections (3) and (4) breach principles which would not be lightly overturned by either side of the House, and certainly will not be overturned by us in this Bill.

Mr. Murton: Where does the hon. Gentleman find the word "ratepayer", or the implication that the ratepayers will have to pay? It is the developer who will have to pay.

Mr. Skeffington: No, the clear implication of subsection (4) is that the local planning authority would be obliged to compensate anyone whose land was adversely affected. This is a novel and wholly objectionable principle. I do not want to suggest that there is no problem with the present large-scale urban development. There is, simply because it often takes time for drainage works, particularly for a large volume of water, to be constructed. The planning autho-

rity must bear this in mind when giving its permission.
Second, it will, if not satisfied, say that, because of certain consequences of the development, it must see the drainage proposals before considering the application further; or perhaps other arrangements can be made with the water board. We propose to draw the attention of the authorities again to this matter because of the difficulty, but it does not call for machinery and certainly not of the kind proposed. Therefore, I could not advise the House to accept the new Clause.

Mr. Rippon: This is an important matter, and the Parliamentary Secretary has treated it as such. Therefore, we very much regret that our hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg), in whose name the Amendment stands, could do no more than refer to it formally before returning to his duties elsewhere. This illustrates the difficulties for hon. Members—apparently on both sides —who now find their commitments in Standing Committees so pressing that they cannot give the time which they would wish to these matters.
I say this because of the merriment of an hon. Member opposite, who, apparently, is not interested in this subject and sits here only because the Government are paying him to do so. I speak for my hon. Friends, who are present in large numbers and who would be augmented by my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde if he were not on the Finance Bill Standing Committee. Government supporters are apparently so jaded that they do not wish to appear anywhere. They are certainly not here this afternoon.
My hon. Friend's Amendment has drawn attention to a real problem, which was fully explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton). I know that the Parliamentary Secretary has gone into this in some detail and raised points worth considering, but the Government are not, apparently, aware of what is happening and his reply was not wholly satisfactory. He was very unfair to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Poole was misleading to say that there was no adequate machinery, since he was stating the truth. There is none. It may be hard to establish it,


but we must face the fact that machinery does not exist.
It is not enough for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that there are several bodies acting under statutory powers. There are several statutory bodies with responsibility and powers, but they do not cover the situation. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged this by referring to another circular, to that of 1962, which was issued in good faith by the then Government, but which has not proved sufficient. Now, the Government propose to issue another, which we are told is in draft. But we do not know what is in it. We know that there have been no discussions with the National Farmers' Union, which has tried unsuccessfully to learn what is in the Government's mind. It has got no information from the Ministry. In these circumstances, it seems that mere exhortation and circulars is not enough and that we should have some new legislation.
9.0 p.m.
The Government have indicated that they recognise the serious damage which is caused to agricultural land by various forms of development. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has indicated this on several occasions. That Department says that it is a matter for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government because it is a question of planning. On the other hand, the Ministry of Housing says that it is a matter for the Ministry of Agriculture to deal with by different machinery. This is not good enough
In criticising subsection (4) of the new Clause the Minister referred to the private developer. He should appreciate that it is often the public authority which is responsible for a major building or highway scheme which causes the mischief to which my hon. Friend the Member for Poole referred; namely, the creation of large impermeable areas from which there is a great discharge of flood water to the damage of downstream land. I can see that there is real difficulty in imposing upon local planning authorities the duty of applying conditions relating to land other than land which is the subject of planning consent. But this problem is so serious that it cannot be dealt with adequately by a circular, even assuming that the Government took the

trouble to consult the appropriate authorities about its terms.

Mr. Skeffington: The circular is in its very early stages. Like the other circular to which I referred, it is a joint document and I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there is no question of shuffling off responsibility from one Ministry to another. When the draft of the circular is far enough ahead there will be the usual consultations. I believe that I said this but, if I omitted to do so, I wish to make the position clear.

Mr. Rippon: I appreciate that. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend has been perusing the matter for some time and the Government knew that the subject would be raised throughout the passage of the Bill. They should have prepared the draft circular and satisfied the House and the interested bodies that they intend to propose some effective action. It is not satisfactory for them simply to ask us to rely on an assurance given now that a circular, which is at present in preliminary draft form, will be of help and that there will be adequate consultation later. We cannot afford to lose this opportunity to press for legislation on this subject.
I agree that some changes will be required in the drafting of the new Clause. This could be dealt with by the Government accepting our proposal and making the necessary changes in another place.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: I did not intend to speak until I heard the unsatisfactory reply of the Minister. He said that under Section 7 of the Rivers Prevention of Pollution Act, 1951, river authorities were charged with the duty of dealing with matters of this kind. He said that they would contact local authorities to ensure that proper schemes were made to deal with flooding. He did not say that the river boards were concerned only when there happened to be substantial flow of discharging water directly into a main river.

Mr. Skeffington: I made that precise point. I tried to define the responsibilities of the statutory bodies.

Mr. Rossi: The hon. Gentleman overlooked the fact that the main complaint of the N.F.U. was in connection with


minor ditches and streams overflowing and flooding land.
It has nothing to do with the outlet of main courses into main rivers. The Minister has missed the point entirely if he feels that this Act is the basis of the whole matter. I ask him to direct his mind particularly to the very many representations that have been made to his Department and to the Ministry of Agriculture, because it is quite clear that by concentrating on this Section of this Act he has misled himself completely as to what the problem is.
The Minister stated that the matter could be dealt with administratively most conveniently by a circular from his Ministry and the Ministry of Agriculture exhorting local authorities to deal with this problem; and that this would be the cure. He told us that a circular is already in draft. In 1962 a joint circular was issued by his Ministry and by the Ministry of Agriculture—Circular 52—entitled "Liaison between Planning Authorities and River Boards." Paragraph 13 of that circular asked local planning authorities to bear in mind the problem of run-off and flooding.
… when considering applications for development near agricultural property and to ensure that satisfactory arrangements are made for dealing with surface water run-off.
The matter was dealt with by circular in 1962. What will this new circular add to the situation? Local authorities have been apprised of the problem, and exhorted to do something about it. They have been asked to bear it in mind when dealing with planning applications where this sort of thing might happen. Yet the problem continues, because we are told by the Minister of Agriculture that case after case is still coming before him. If the local authorities had heeded the circular issued those years ago, one could have expected a diminution of this kind of complaint, but that is not the case.
In the debate on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) referred, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture said:
My right hon. Friend, the Minister of Housing and Local Government has made it clear to planning authorities that the effect of development on land drainage is a

material factor to be taken into account when granting consent.
He said that the Minister of Housing
… is already in touch with local authority associations, seeking their views on the problem of drainage….
It was not only the Minister of Housing, because the Joint Parliamentary Secretary went on to say that
… the Minister of Transport has drawn the attention of local authorities to the need for caution …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 30th January, 1968; c. 498–9.]
So we have had one Minister after another telling local authorities, exhorting them, and drawing their attention to this problem, yet still the complaints come in. I venture to suggest that another circular will not improve the position one jot or tittle, but will just be another piece of paper on the files of local authorities, joining the existing circulars and the existing exhortations.
It is for this reason that my hon. Friend has put forward this new Clause which would put on local authorities and developers a positive obligation to take action that would stop this nuisance. It is not sufficient for the Minister to say that the farmers have common law remedies. They may have an action in law, but they may not wish to go to court to sue for damages. All this has happened after the flooding. Their concern is to prevent flooding, and injury to and waterlogging of their property. That is not prevented by legal action. This happens after the event. We know that the problem continues, because the cases are continuing to come into the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government stating, "Despite your circulars, we still have this problem. When will you face up to it?"

Mr. Skeffington: The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), on his rather late arrival in this debate, completely misunderstood the speech I made. I drew attention to the fact that there was a problem which is growing because of the pace of urban development and the fact that land drainage cannot keep pace with that development. It is important to draw the attention of authorities to that, but I did not rely on it as the solution to the problem. Rainfall, as Noah


discovered, is an act of God and whatever measures we take they do not get over that fact.
I brought in the question of compensation because that was part of the new Clause to which I was replying. I quite agree that compensation is unsatisfactory, but we want in the first place to prevent excessive flooding. I believe the combination of actions by river authorities and local authorities is the best guarantee we have for keeping the balance right between the development which is allowed and dealing with the problems which arise.

Division No. 148.]
AYES
 [9.13 p.m. 


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Goodhew, Victor
Pounder, Rafton


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Grant, Anthony
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Astor, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) 
Pym, Francis


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bessell, Peter
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Biffen, John
Hill, J. E. B.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David



Biggs-Davison, John
Holland, Philip
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Boardman, Tom
Hordern, Peter
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Brewis, John
Iremonger, T. L.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Scott, Nicholas


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Sharpies, Richard


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Kirk, Peter
Silvester, Frederick


Burden, F. A.
Kitson, Timothy
Sinclair, Sir George


Cary, Sir Robert
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Channon, H. P. G.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Speed, Keith


Clark, Henry
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stainton, Keith


Clegg, Walter
Lubbock, Eric
Tapseli, Peter


Cooke, Robert
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Costain, A. P.
Maude, Angus
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow.cathcart)


Crouch, David
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Crowder, F. P.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Temple, John M.


Currie, G. B. H.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dance, James
More, Jasper
Tilney, John


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Murton, Oscar
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Nabarro, sir, Gerald
Ward Dame Irene


Eden, Sir John
Onslow, Cranley
Whotelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Elliott, R.W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne.N.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Emery, Peter
Pardoe, John
Wills, sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Errington, Sir Eric
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Wright, Esmond 


Farr, John
Perclval, Ian



Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Peyton, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Foster, Sir John
Pink, R. Bonner
Mr. Hector Monro and




Mr. Reginald Eyre.





NOES


Allen, Scholefield
Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John


Armstrong, Ernest
Buchan, Norman
Dickens, James


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Doig, Peter


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Dunnett, Jack


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Carmichael, Neil
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)


Bamett, Joel
Chapman, Donald
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)


Beaney, Alan
Coe, Denis
Eadie, Alex


Bid well, Sydney
Concannon, J. D.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Blackburn, F.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Ellis, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
English, Michael


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)


Boyden, James
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Fernyhough, E.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dell, Edmund
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dempsey, James
Fowler, Gerry


Brown, Hugh D). (G'gow, Provan)
Dewar, Donald
Fraser, John (Norwood)

I make quite clear that there is no question of one Department trying to shuffle off this matter on to another Department. It is a problem which we want to tackle jointly, as we have done in the past. The very fact that a public authority may by development cause a problem is one of the reasons why there should be a legal remedy as well as taking steps to prevent flooding if that is possible.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time: —

The House divided: Ayes 110, Noes 157.

Freeson, Reginald
McNamara, J. Kevin
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Galpern, Sir Myer
MacPherson, Malcolm
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Gardner, Tony
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Garrett, W. E.

Mapp, Charles
Skeffington, Arthur


Courlay, Harry
Marks, Kenneth
Slater, Joseph


Gregory, Arnold
Marquand, David
Small, William


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Snow, Julian


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mayhew, Christopher
Spriggs, Leslie


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mendelson, J. J.
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W)


Hamling, William
Millan, Bruce
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Hannan, William
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Swingler, Stephen


Haseldine, Norman
Moyle, Roland
Symonds, J. B.


Henig, Stanley
Newens, Stan
Taverne, Dick


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)
Thornton, Ernest


Hooley, Frank
Ogden, Eric
Tinn, James


Horner, John
O'Malley, Brian
Urwln, T. W.


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Orbach, Maurice
Varley, Eric C.


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Orme, Stanley
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Hoy, James
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Huckfield, Leslie
Owen Will (Morpeth)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hunter, Adam
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Wallace, George


Hynd, John
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Walking, David (Consett)


Irvine, Sir Arthur
Park, Trevor
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Whitlock, William


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pavitt, Laurence
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Kelley, Richard
Pentland, Norman
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Kenyon, Clifford
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Lawson, George
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Winnick, David


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Price, William (Rugby)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Woof, Robert


Loughlin, Charles
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow,E.)
Yates, Victor


Lyon, Alexander W, (York)
Roebuck, Roy



MacDermot, Niall
Rose, Paul
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Macdonald, A. H.
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)
Mr. Charles Carey.


Mackintosh, John P.
Sheldon, Robert

New Clause 11.

PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY.

In exercising their powers under this Act a local planning authority shall as respects public rights of way to which Part VI of the Highways Act 1959 applies have due regard to the need for the creation, closure and diversion of public rights of way, and to initiate changes in footpath patterns where they are needed.— [Mr. Channon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Clause deals with public rights of way, particularly footpaths and bridleways. We move away for a short time from the more urban matters which have been interesting the House for most, though not all, of this afternoon. I urge on the Government the merits of this Clause, even though I expect that it will be possible for the Parliamentary Secretary to raise drafting points against it.
All hon. Members who have been following the proceedings on this Bill and on the Countryside Bill will know that the question of footpaths and bridleways, their creation, closure and diversion, has exercised many hon. Members during this Session and in the past.
It would be generally agreed that the present system of footpaths and bridleways is totally out of date. Most evolved centuries ago. They were paths to and from the farms and the villages. Some were old pack-horse routes. It is true that a minority were planned deliberately, but most just grew up and in the course of time became legal rights of way. I will not go into the historical details, but a haphazard pattern has grown up.
The need has changed. Footpaths used to be needed for severely practical purposes. Now, for the most part, although not entirely, they are needed for recreation. The number of people who walk in the countryside using these footpaths ha? grown enormously, and will go on growing. This has led to conflicting interests in the countryside. It is common ground that we wish to see an adequate number of footpaths. We wish to encourage walkers. Walking is a healthy and enjoyable exercise, and more hon. Members should take part in it. At the same time, we must realise that the livelihood of the farmers, and those who live and work in the countryside, must not be put at risk. This is especially so now, when food production is so vital and agricultural interests are so crucial to our country.
The differences between these conflicting interests must and can be reconciled. The Government agree with that. They have agreed in the past that changes are required. In discussing footpaths and bridleways, the Government White Paper "Leisure in the Countryside" said:
It is clear that some amendments to the legislation, which is in some respects out-of-date, are required … some simplification of the procedure for the creation, diversion and closure of footpaths is necessary in the interests both of users and of landowners and occupiers …
But in the Government's view a more radical reform may well be needed, to provide a legislative framework which would permit the development of a system of footpaths and bridleways, some based on existing routes, but others newly created, which would be more suited to modern needs.
They then stated that they intended to have consultations and would try to bring forward changes in the law, including, if necessary, the creation of new administrative machinery to achieve their purpose.
Unfortunately, I think that the Government have not completed the job they set themselves to do in the White Paper. The Gosling Committee on rights of way concluded that, for what it called utilitarian footpaths—which are now perhaps in the minority—the convenience of pedestrians should be paramount. The majority of footpaths are now needed for recreational purposes and a fair balance needs to be struck between the interests of the farmers and of those who are going to use the footpaths, because they can present very serious difficulties for the farmers.
There is, I think, general agreement that the present arrangements for the creation and closure and diversion of footpaths are out of date and difficult to understand and implement. They are largely embodied in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act and have subsequently been consolidated in the Highways Act, 1950. I need not describe in detail what the legal arrangements are, because they are set out fully in Appendix 2 of the Gosling Report, but there is a procedure whereby magistrates' courts can stop up or divert footpaths if necessary or whereby they can be developed to make them more commodious to the general public. This, under the present law, can only be done on the application of the local highway autho-

rity. An individual can make application to that authority and, if he manages to persuade it, it must then convince the magistrates' court that this procedure should be followed.
The local authorities have also been given powers to make public path extinguishment orders, which have to be confirmed by the Minister. Is it any longer necessary to have this confirmation power for these orders? The Minister may have to have a local inquiry in a case of this kind, and this procedure also applies to diversion orders. There are also powers to create public bodies through public path creation orders, which also have to be confirmed by the Minister.
I welcome the new procedures in Schedule 3 of the Countryside Bill, now in another place, which would add county councils to the list of local authorities with the power to create footpaths. Previously this has been restricted to district and urban councils.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going rather wide. He must now come to the new Clause.

Mr. Channon: I will do so immediately, Mr. Speaker. The present system is extremely unsatisfactory and my argument is that local planning authorities, in respect of the rights of way, should have particular regard to the need for these matters to be considered and to initiate changes in patterns where these are needed. It is my case that, as the law stands, the local authorities, although they have these powers do not really have placed upon them the duty to give proper consideration to the whole pattern of footpaths in their areas. The local authorities should be made to ask themselves two questions on this. First, are all the footpaths at present in their areas needed? Second—the corollary to that, are the ones that exist in their areas adequate?
9.30 p.m.
We had high hopes some time ago that in these two Bills, which are very related in this matter, the Government would take steps to improve the situation. There was the White Paper which I have quoted and the setting up of the Gosling Committee on rights of way. I have no wish to be critical of the Government, especially after the good start they made by


setting up the Gosling Committee and producing the White Paper. But it is a great pity that this matter should subsequently have been handled as the Government chose to handle it. Having set up the Committee, they introduced the Countryside Bill before it had reported. That was extraordinary. They were then faced with two possible solutions—either to delay the Countryside Bill until the Gosling Committee had finished and its Report could be adequately studied—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are discussing this Bill, not the Countryside Bill.

Mr. Channon: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I was trying, in passing, to make the point that in a way this Clause is connected with the Gosling Report and the Countryside Bill. The Government could either have dealt with the Clause I put forward in the Countryside Bill or in the present Bill. My criticism of them is that I understand that they have taken neither course.
I was saying that I had wished they had taken the course in the Countryside Bill, but since they have not decided to do that, I still feel that there is a need for legislation. The rights of way Clauses in the Countryside Bill should have been taken out of it and proper legislation along those lines and along the lines of our new Clause should be introduced. That is the course we urged on the Government both during that Bill's passage and tonight.
I think that what the Gosling Committee recommended is directly relevant, because the whole purpose of the Committee was to report on the creation, closure and diversion of public rights of way. In recommendation 4 of its Report it said:
Creation, diversion and cosure of footpaths and bridleways should be regarded as aspects of land use and become planning functions and the responsibility of the local planning authority.
That is the approach that I tried to incorporate in the new Clause.
In recommendation 5 it said:
Planning authorities should have the power and duty to initiate changes in footpath patterns and to consider applications for changes both from users and landowners.
We should like to see the Government do that, and it is another feature of the Clause we put forward.
Throughout the consideration of this Bill and the Countryside Bill we have had repeated assurances from the Government that they would implement any unanimous Gosling recommendation along the lines which I have quoted. The Minister of State said in the Committee proceedings on the Countryside Bill, when he argued that this matter would be more properly dealt with by this Bill:
But I can give this assurance: if, on those matters,"—
these are the ones I am describing—
which, as hon. Members know, are very complex, we were to receive agreed recommendations from the Gosling Committee, which, in the Government's view, would lead to a simplification of these complex legal positions and would provide for a better system, then it certainly would be the Government's hope that they could bring forward new Clauses to the Town and Country Planning Bill based upon those recommendations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 1st February, 1968; c. 706.]
I only wish that the Government had brought forward those new Clauses.
To those of us interested in this problem, it came as a shock to learn from the Government on the Third Reading of the Countryside Bill that, in spite of the assurances we had been given, it was not intended fully to implement the Report of the Gosling Committee along those lines. Will the Government give a full explanation of their reasons and expound their alternative plans for this important matter? How soon will they bring forward a plan alternative to the one which Gosling recommended? We were told on the Third Reading of the Countryside Bill that there were no plans even then for early legislation. No wonder that my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) expressed himself very forcibly on that occasion and spoke of the shock and disappointment which hon. Members felt.
It appeared that there was one paragraph in the Gosling Report which the Government were unwilling to accept. I refer to paragraph 27, setting out the detailed procedure which Gosling suggested people should follow when applying to the local planning authority for an order creating, diverting or closing footpaths. The Government, as I understand their case, base their refusal to do anything on the ground that that paragraph is impractical. In that case, will they



suggest an alternative rather than leave the problem as it stands now?
I hope that the Government will accept the recommendation of the Gosling Committee in paragraph 22, that planning authorities should have the power and duty to initiate changes and power to consider applications for changes from both users and land owners. My hon. Friends and I do not wish to stand on paragraph 27 of the Gosling Report if alternative and more satisfactory arrangements can be found, but we certainly ask that that recommendation be implemented even if the Government cannot accept the detailed proposals for implementing it which the Gosling Committee wanted.
The position now is that, as a result of the Bills going through Parliament, the matter is more urgent than ever. Under the old procedures, there were many footpaths which were little used, with a haphazard pattern, some paths probably not having been used for years. With the advent of the present legislation, all this controversy has been publicised and activated. There is now a duty to put signs on every footpath. Farmers have a duty to maintain stiles on every footpath. We need a quick and flexible procedure which the planning authorities will be able to use either on an application from fanners, if need be, to close a footpath, or on application from the general public to create other footpaths where there is inadequate provision at present.
We all agree that the present procedure is unsatisfactory. Some impetus must be put behind this matter. We want local authorities to have to look at the whole picture and periodically to review the pattern of footpaths generally in their area. Unless further steps are taken along the lines of the new Clause, the whole position will remain unsatisfactory. If the Government cannot accept the detailed proposals in paragraph 27 of the Gosling Report, they have a duty to produce an alternative. Otherwise, they will have done three-quarters of the job of tackling footpaths, bridleways and public rights of way, but they will have left out the key to the whole procedure for the future. They will have caused a vast amount of unnecessary expense. There will be all these signs on footpaths, a lot of which are conceded by everyone

to be unnecessary, there will have been a lot more muddle, and the situation, instead of being improved, will have been made worse.
The Government must tell us clearly how they envisage the question of footpaths being dealt with under the new planning system created by this Bill. My right hon. and hon. Friends are disappointed that the Government have so far shown themselves unwilling to accept the Gosling proposals, but they will gladly welcome constructive alternative suggestions from the Government. However, should we hear nothing from the Government tonight, my right hon. and hon. Friends who take an interest in this important matter will be bitterly disappointed that the Government, having set out to deal with the problem, have failed to tackle by far the most important aspect of it.

Mr. Skeffington: It seems a little bit like old times to hear the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) speaking on this subject which, I know, is very close to his heart. I should like to make a marginal comment on the first part of his speech which, if I may say so, came, I thought, a little oddly from him, a member of the Council of the Commons and Footpaths Preservation Society, for he seemed to hanker so much after a kind a regular pattern of footpaths.
The hon. Gentleman pointed out how they had developed over the centuries, and that nowadays people wanted to use them, and that once upon a time they had to use them. I am glad that he has indicated now that, perhaps, it was not so, but he left me with the impression that he was thinking in terms of a very regular pattern, and all I wanted to say was that I do not think this is what a great many people want, although some change, some rationalisation, particularly for easier opportunities to use footpaths, certainly is required.

Mr. Channon: I am very sorry if I gave that impression. I certainly did not intend to. I based myself on the Gosling Committee's Report, which itself said there should not be too rigid regularisa-tion, and that the haphazard pattern was to some extent one of the charms of these footpaths.

Mr. Skeffington: That was the alternative point I was coming to, that one cannot hope for too much system here, although, quite clearly the new requirements for recreation, as well as the former use of these paths, are very much to be encouraged.
I think that I can very briefly summarise the position. I do not want to comment on the drafting of the hon. Gentleman's new Clause. I do not think that that really matters, but it does put footpaths, as it were out on a limb, apart from everything else which local authorities and planning authorities have to consider under the Bill. There are a thousand other matters which they have to consider but the hon. Gentleman would separate out this question of the creation and alternation of footpaths.
However, in the whole of his argument I think that the hon. Gentleman overlooked some very important parts of the Bill, points I want to come to in a moment, and which will go a very long way, I believe, to meet the main point of his new Clause and that contained in paragraph 27 of the Gosling Committee's Report.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State said on Third Reading, on 9th April, the position is that the Government accepted recommendations 4, 5 and 6, and some provisions are being made elsewhere. It would be out of order to refer to them in detail, but I think that they are not unknown to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Rippon: On a point of order. It would be very helpful if the hon. Gentleman were allowed to tell us what is happening. We certainly do not know of any action other than the Bill which the Government are taking in implementing recommendations 4, 5 and 6.

Mr. Skeffington: I think that if I were to refer to proceedings in another place on another Bill I would be out of order, but I think that this matter is generally known, and we have already indicated that certain changes are to be made in relation to responsibilities of the Ministry of Transport—responsibilities which will be passed to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government—under the Highways Act. This is one of the provisions being made elsewhere. I can certainly say that recommendations 4, 5 and 6 of

the second interim Report of the Gosling Committee were accepted, as my hon. and learned Friend made quite clear.
Paragraph 27 was not a recommendation, as, I think, the hon. Gentleman suggested. He suggested certain procedures might be introduced. That paragraph was a suggestion, it was not a recommendation. My hon. and learned Friend suggested that we could not contemplate immediate legislation on this. He said that in a speech made in Committee on another Bill. He said, in relation to this matter, that there were recommendations which, in the Government's opinion, would lead to an improvement in the situation. My hon. and learned Friend on 9th April said it was impracticable, in the Government's view, to introduce the suggestion in paragraph 27 and that, in the Government's opinion, this would not be a practicable procedure. This, I am sure, is the reason why the hon. Gentleman has put down a new Clause. I want to spell out the reasons why we do not think this can be acceptable.
The suggestion in paragraph 27 of the Gosling Committee's Report comprises these elements. First, any person or body could apply to the local planning authority for an order for the creation, diversion or closure of a footpath. The initiative is no longer to come after consultation with or investigation by the local authority. It can come, not even by a recognised society, but by an individual. When that application was considered the planning authority would have to notify the owner, as would the person or body applying for a footpath procedure, and advertise in the local newspapers and in the London Gazette. After a period of time, if there were objections, they would have to be considered, and then the authority would make its decision.
A very interesting suggestion in para-27(d) was that, whether the planning authority granted or refused an application, any interested party which had made representation on the original application should have a right of appeal to the Minister. Almost certainly there would be an appeal. There would be an appeal by those who wanted the footpath. To a great extent this would give impetus to walkers and ramblers to ask local authorities for more footpaths. It might be


opposed by landowners and allotment owners through or near whose land a footpath was sought. There would be orders which would be secured by agreement and not contested, but there would be a great many cases where, inevitably, there would be a right of appeal, either by the individual whose application had been refused, or by the owner across whose soil it was suggested the new right of way should be created. One would have a mass of appeals flooding into the Ministry.
There are two consequences which must have struck the hon. Gentleman. A major part of the Bill is designed to prevent thousands of appeals cascading into Whitehall. By adopting this series of suggestions we would be creating a new series of appeals to the Minister. There are at least some criteria by which to judge the appeals which now come forward. But in this case there would be no background corpus of knowledge by which the Minister could judge them. There would be an intermediate stage between the appeal and the decision of the local authority, since there would have to be a public inquiry under the proposals. When he had received the report of whoever heard the appeal, the Minister would be expected to judge it against a background of which he has relatively no knowledge.
For the reason that they would undoubtedly create very large numbers of appeals in a Measure which is designed to ensure that such matters should be decided locally, the Government took the view that the suggestions—I emphasise they are not recommendations—in this part of the Gosling Report were not practicable. This was stated by my hon. and learned Friend on the Third Reading of the Countryside Bill, and it is our position today. Does that mean that we do nothing about it? No, it does not. As I have already said, recommendations 4, 5 and 6 of this group of recommendations have been accepted by the Government.
In connection with this matter of a system of footpaths—I do not want to call it a plan, because I do not want to fall into the trap of the hon. Gentleman by using that phrase—it will be perfectly proper, under the major provisions of the Bill, that footpaths should be considered both at the structure and at the

local planning stages. It is true that they will not often be a prominent feature in a structural plan, except in the case of a long-distance way, a coastal route, or something like that. However, the existing pattern of footpaths will be an important matter to consider in the recreational and rural areas when looking ahead as far as it is possible to do. In making its local plan, it will be possible for a local planning authority to take full account of it and make the necessary provisions.
Furthermore, all the emphasis that we put in the earlier part of the Bill and such recommendations as are brought forward by the Committee which I have the honour to chair, will mean that the public will have a bigger say about footpaths than ever before when a local planning authority is making its local plan. All of this gives an opportunity within the Bill to deal with a system and pattern of footpaths in a given locality.
That is the immediate answer that I can give as to the way in which we feel that it is best to deal with this provision in the Bill. When the Bill and the other Measure receive the Royal Assent, specific guidance will be given about this matter so that local authorities can take it into account.
The proposals which I put before the House on paragraph 27 of the Gosling Report, which is the hon. Gentleman's major point, will be met within the body of the Bill, and I think that that will be an extremely effective way of doing it.
With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not feel it necessary to press his Clause.

Mr. James Ramsden: In an admirable speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) put our point of view so clearly that I can be quite brief.
In essence, the issue that he raised was a perfectly simple one. It sought to ask why the Government, having given the Committee considering the Countryside Bill to understand that there would be legislation to take account of our point of view, had now decided not to bring forward that legislation.
In a very long speech, the Parliamentary Secretary explained to the House why the suggestions made in paragraph 27 of


the Gosling Report are not workable, in his view. It may be true that they are not workable, but that is beside the point. At a very late hour, the Minister of State said on Third Reading that the Government accepted in principle the Committee's fifth recommendation—

Mr. Speaker: With respect, we cannot have the Third Reading debate on the Countryside Bill over again, any more than we can have the Second Reading of another Bill which has not yet come before us. The right hon. Gentleman must come to the Clause.

Mr. Ramsden: I am in the same difficulty as my hon. Friend. We seek to argue that the Government should have introduced legislation, having undertaken to do so. They have not done that. By moving the Amendment we are seeking to do it in their stead and getting the House to accept it. With respect, Mr. Speaker, it is to that point I am addressing my argument. My argument is relevant because the Minister of State said that he accepted in principle the need for legislation. He told us that on Third Reading of another Bill. He went on to say that the Government did not contemplate immediate legislation. The simple question I ask is: Why not? If there is no good answer, the Government should accept the Amendment so that we get the legislation.
The Government's position seems to be that what was suggested by the Gosling Committee is not acceptable and they will have to find some other way. I regret that they have not so far found another way and are not prepared to make recommendations to the House to implement that which they accept as being desirable. I regret this all the more because, in my view at any rate, the Government put themselves in the position on the Committee stage of leading us to believe that if Gosling came up with an acceptable recommendation and they accepted it, there would be legislation.
On reflection, I think hon. Gentlemen opposite must regret having got into that position. As a result of what was said in Committee, the proceedings both on the Countryside Bill and on the Town and Country Planning Bill were considerably facilitated. It would be a pity if. having eased their position regarding

these two Measures, the Government were not prepared to follow up the spirit of the undertaking that they gave. I think they should, if it is not too late, have second thoughts. I am sure they regret not having done so.

Mr. Rippon: This is one of the most serious matters which we have to discuss tonight because the Government, unfortunately, have behaved throughout in a thoroughly devious and unsatisfactory way. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) said, there was a clear understanding that the Countryside Bill should be expedited on the assurance of the Government that when Gosling made its recommendations, matters which could not be dealt with in the Countryside Bill would be dealt with in the Town and Country Planning Bill.
Accordingly, I wrote to the Minister of Housing and Local Government on 27th March, saying:
I will be grateful if you can let me know when you intend to table the necessary new Clauses in the Town and Country Planning Bill to give effect to those recommendations of the Gosling Committee which the Government accept. I feel that it is important that the position should be cleared before the House deals with the Report stage of the Countryside Bill.
I got no answer to that letter. However, I was told informally that the Minister of State would be able to deal with the matter on Third Reading of the Countryside Bill, although there had not been time to frame the necessary or possible Amendments to the Town and Country Planning Bill at that stage.
On 9th April, as we have heard, the Minister of State made clear:
We have accepted recommendations 4, 5 and 6 of the Report. Recommendation 6 is a clear legislative recommendation which we accept and will implement. We accept that these matters should become a planning function."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1968; Vol. 762, c.1330.]
We were clearly led to understand that it would not simply be a minor amendment of the law which would be made in the Town and Country Planning Bill, but that the real substance of the Gosling Committee's recommendations concerning this matter would be dealt with.
Recommendation 5 in the Gosling Report is set out more fully in paragraph 22:
We recommend that in future the creation, diversion and closure of footpaths and bridleways should be regarded as aspects of land use


and so become planning functions. This means that the powers now vested in district councils by virtue of the Highways Act, 1959, should be transferred to local planning authorities. We also recommend that planning authorities should have the power and duty to initiate changes in footpath patterns when they are needed and, equally, power to consider applications for changes both from users and from landowners 
That is a perfectly clear recommendation. The Government had a clear duty, in view of their undertakings at every stage in our discussions, to table the necessary Clause—

It being: Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Town and Country Planning Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]

Question again proposed.

Mr. Rippon: In the light of all the discussions that have taken place and the undertakings that they gave to my hon. Friend and myself at every stage of the proceedings, the Government have a clear duty to table the necessary legislation. We have had to do their duty for them. The case for the new Clause rests on the recommendations of the Gosling Committee which the Government themselves set up to deal with this matter.
On 25th April—a considerable time after the discussions which took place on the Third Reading of the Countryside Bill—the Minister of Housing and Local Government said:
 I apologise for the delay in replying to your letter of 27th March about the tabling of new Clauses in the Town and Country Planning Bill and the Countryside Bill. We found it impracticable no take action on the Gosling Committee's final recommendations at the Report Stage of the Countryside Bill, but we intend to make some further amendments in the Lords.
The Parliamentary Secretary made reference to that tonight, but we do not regard it as a satisfactory position, and there is no indication that the recommendations will be dealt with.
The Minister went on to say:
The Minister of State explained in his speech on Third Reading that we intend to make provision in the Town and Country Planning Bill for transferring the functions of the Minister of Transport, dealing with footpaths under section 153 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, to the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

That is relative to recommendation 6.
 We think that the other major proposal in paragraph 27 needs further consideration and consultation with the authorities affected and we do not contemplate immediate legislation.
That is a rather different way of expressing the position from that which the Minister of State put forward in the Third Reading debate of that Bill. He said: referring to paragraph 27 of the Report,
 I do not think that hon. Members opposite who speak of it as if it were "—
a recommendation—
 have quite taken that on board. Paragraph 27 says:
'we suggest that the law should provide for the following steps to be taken '.
When the Report makes recommendations, it does not in fact make a positive recommendation based on paragraph 27. It was a suggest-tion only, and I have no doubt that the Committee realised the difficulties involved in the suggestion. It would be out of order, even if the House had the patience to listen, for me to try to explain why those suggestions would produce a quite unworkable position, but I would gladly meet hon. Members to explain my reasons for saying that. I cannot undertake, and it would be irresponsible of me to suggest, that we should bring forward legislative proposals in the Town and Country Planning Bill based upon recommendations which we believe would produce a wholly unworkable position and an anarchic state of the law on this subject. All we can do, and what I have done, is to say that we shall at once enter into consultations with the parties concerned to see what procedure we can devise to implement the recommendations which we have accepted." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April, 1968; Vol. 762, c. 1329.]
The recommendations that were referred to were Nos. 4, 5 and 6.
The Minister of State says that paragraph 27 relates only to a suggestion but the Minister of Housing and Local Government says
 We think the other major proposal in paragraph 27 needs further consideration and consultation with the authorities affected and we do not contemplate immediate legislation.
He did not rule it out altogether, and it would be quite intolerable to deal with a responsible body like the Gosling Committee by saying that simply because in paragraph 27 it makes a suggestion it is not to be regarded as a recommendation of any sort. My hon. Friend put the matter clearly in saying that we are not standing, any more than the Committee did, on the exact form of that suggestion. We are saying that the matters (a) to (g)


in paragraphs 27 should be the subject, as the Minister of State promised, of further consideration and consultation. There is nothing in paragraph 27 to over-ride or undermine paragraph 22 and recommendation No. 5, which it is the main purpose of the new Clause to implement.
Therefore, I hope that, even at this stage, in view of all they have said to me and my hon. Friends, the Government will accept this Clause. This should be done and I hope that they will honour their obligations.

Mr. MacDermot: Since an attempt has been made to attack my honesty, I think, in this matter, let me make it clear that there is nothing which I have undertaken to do which has not been done. I said that we accepted recommendations 4, 5 and 6. Only one of those, No. 6, points clearly to a requirement for legislation and that is embodied in the Bill. Recommendation 4 says that these matters, dealing with the closure and diversion of footpaths and bridlepaths and the creation of new ones, should be regarded in future as planning functions.
Recommendation No. 5, on which the right hon. and learned Gentleman worked himself into such a state of indignation says:
Planning authorities should have the power and duty to initiate changes in footpath patterns and to consider applications for changes both from users and landowners.
I entirely agree with the whole approach described by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). This is a matter on which we must be careful, but I accept that the pattern of many of our footpaths is out of date. I believe that, in the machinery of local plans under the new planning system, local planning authorities will be able to do what recommendations 4 and 5 asked.
As the hon. Gentleman said, there must be a survey of the existing pattern of footpaths against present day needs, to see how the two measure up. Where they do not, the authorities can, under the new system, in the form of a local plan, produce an alternative pattern, and this must be subject to all the procedures for publicising, publication and consultation and for receiving representations from interested parties, including agricultural

and amenity interests, before the plan is accepted and approved.
Then, we will have the coherent framework against which to do the individual closures, diversions and creation of new footpaths, as to which I am assured that adequate legal powers exist. We will consult the authorities on these matters and if some additional powers are required, that can be dealt with.
I am certain that, for a substantial period ahead, the task is one for the local planning authorities, as the hon. Member for Southend, West mentioned. With respect, I do not think that the new Clause would have much effect and it would be misleading if written into the Bill. What we want to do is to make use of the new planning system to achieve what we all agree is a desirable objective.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that these matters could be dealt with "in some way". In what way? In our debates on a Bill which we must not mention tonight, I would have taken a very different view if I had thought that these matters would not be dealt with in this Bill. I am now told that they will not be dealt with under this Bill, but somewhere else. Where will they be dealt with?

Mr. MacDermot: I do not know to which matters the hon. Gentleman is referring. I am saying that if, in the working out of this, it should later be found that some addition to the powers is required, then that matter can be considered and discussed. I am advised that there are adequate powers in the authorities now for the opening, closing and diverting of footpaths, but that they lack coherent judgment against which to base their decisions in individual cases.

Mr. David Gibson-Watt: During an earlier debate the hon. and learned Gentleman dealt with this subject throughout. It is, therefore, with him, rather than with the Parliamentary Secretary, that we have a quarrel tonight. The points made by my hon. Friends are well known and I will merely repeat that whereas throughout our discussion of the Countryside Bill we were promised—not only in Committee but elsewhere—that the matter would be dealt


with, it is clear that, whatever the hon. and learned Gentleman may say, it has not been dealt with, either in this Measure or in the Countryside Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot deny that.

Mr. MacDermot: I do. The whole of the new system of structure and local plans, which this Bill is mainly about, is concerned with the machinery that is required to implement the recommendation of Gosling to which I referred.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered my question. I asked him whether, in this Bill or in the Countryside Bill, this matter has been put right. The answer is "No", and he knows that only too well. The reason why we set such store by this—I accept that the wording of the new Clause is not perfect; no new Clause ever is—is because we hold this to be important in view of the new situation which will arise for local authorities when the Government tell them to signpost all existing footpaths throughout the

Division No. 149.]
AYES
[10.12 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barktton Afh)
Goodhew, Victor
Pounder, Rafton


Allason, James (Hemel Hetnpstead)
Crant, Anthony
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Astor, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Pym, Francis


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Quennell, Miss J. M.



Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Biffen, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Biggs-Davison, John
Holland, Philip
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Boardman, Tom
Hordern, Peter
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bossom, Sir Clive
Iremonger, T. L.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Brewis, John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Scott, Nicholas


Burden, F. A.
Kirk, Peter
Sharples, Richard


Cary, Sir Robert
Kitson, Timothy
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Channon, H. P. G.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Silvester, Frederick


Clark, Henry
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Clegg, Walter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Speed, Keith


Cooke, Robert
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stainton, Keith


Costain, A. P.
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Crouch, David
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Crowder, F. P.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Currie, G. B. H.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Temple, John M.


Dance, James
Monro, Hector
Tilney, John


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
More, Jasper
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Deeds, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Mimro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ward, Dame Irene


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Murton, Oscar
Webster, David


Eden, Sir John
Nabarro, Sir Gorald
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Emery, Peter
Onslow, Cranley
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Errington, Sir Eric
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Farr, John
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Wright, Esmond


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Percival, Ian



Foster, Sir John
Peyton, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gibson-Watt, David
Pink, R. Bonner
Mr. R. W. Elliott and




Mr. Reginald Eyre.




NOES


Alten, Scholefield
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Beaney, Alan


Armstrong, Ernest
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bessell, Peter


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Barnett, Joel
Bidwell, Sydney

country. The hon. and learned Gentleman has made no provision whereby local authorities—planning authorities as they will become—can, before this is done, have an overall decision about which footpaths shall exist and which shall not.

The framework created by the Countryside Bill, and, to an extent, reinforced by this Measure, should be completed. This method of proceeding is unsatisfactory. The way in which it has been handled by the Government is atrocious and when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) said that Ministers had been devious, I can only say that my hon. Friends and I were led to believe all the way through that we would have a satisfactory answer at some time to this question. We have not received that and I therefore hope that my hon. Friends will divide the House.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time: —

The House divided: Ayes, 102, Noes 155.

Blackburn, F.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Park, Trevor


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hooley, Frank
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Horner, John
Pavitt, Laurence


Boyden, James
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pentland, Norman


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hoy, James
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Huckfield, Leslie
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hunter, Adam
Price, William (Rugby)


Buchan, Norman
Hynd, John
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Irvine, Sir Arthur
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Roebuck, Roy


Carmichael, Neil
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rose, Paul


Chapman, Donald
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Coe, Denis
Kelley, Richard
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Concannon, J. D.
Kenyon, Clifford
Sheldon, Robert


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lawson, George
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Leadbitter, Ted
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (stretford)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Skeffington, Arthur


Dell, Edmund
Loughlin, Charles
Slater, Joseph


Dempsey, James
Lubbock, Eric
Snow, Julian


Dewar, Donald
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Spriggs, Leslie


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
MacDermot, Niall
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Dickens, James
Macdonald, A. H.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Doig, Peter
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Swingler, Stephen


Dunnett, Jack
McNamara, J. Kevin
Taverne, Dick


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Thornton, Ernest



Dunwoody, Dr. John(F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Tinn, James


Eadie, Alex
Mapp, Charles
Urwin, T. W.


Ellis, John
Marks, Kenneth
Varley, Eric G.


English, Michael
Marquand, David
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Fernyhough, E.
Mayhew, Christopher
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mendelson, J. J.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Millan, Bruce
Wallace, George


Fowler, Gerry
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Freeson, Reginald
Moyle, Roland
Whitlock, William


Galpern, Sir Myer
Newens, Stan
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Gardner, Tony
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Gourlay, Harry
Norwood, Christopher
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Gregory, Arnold
Ogden, Eric
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Grey, Charles (Durham)
O'Malley, Brian
Winnick, David


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Orbach, Maurice
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Orme, Stanley
Woof, Robert


Hamling, William
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Yates, Victor


Hannan, William
Owen Will (Morpeth)



Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Haseldine, Norman
Paget, R. T.
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Henig, Stanley
Pardoe, John
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.

New Clause 13.

REFUND OF BETTERMENT LEVY WHERE COMPLETION NOTICE IS SERVED.

Where a builder or developer has paid betterment levy in respect of land on which planning permission ceases to have effect as a result of the service of a completion notice in accordance with section 57 of this Act, the Land Commission shall have power to refund to him the entire amount of the levy.—[Mr. Rossi.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Rossi: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The object of the Clause is to grant the Land Commission a new power. It is a wonder that the day has come that anyone from this side of the House should be seeking to give a new power —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a general round of conversation when an hon. Member is addressing the House.

Mr. Rossi: —to the Land Commission. We would have a far more interesting fate for it.
So that we can consider the new Clause fully, I must refer the House to Clause 57. This provides that, where planning permission has been granted subject to a condition that the development must be begun before a certain date and the development is begun but not completed before that date, the local planning authority, is of opinon that the development will not be completed within a reasonable period, may serve a notice stating that the planning permission shall cease to have effect. That notice, known as a completion notice, has to be confirmed by the Minister.
This situation can arise. A developer is granted a conditional planning permission, conditional in the sense that he must begin his work before a certain date. He complies with that condition and commences the development. Having commenced it, he is then liable to pay betterment levy under Case C of the Land Commission Act for carrying cut a material development. Having done both those things, having started his development and having paid the betterment levy, he then finds that for some reason he is unable to continue

the development for the time being. Perhaps bad weather has stopped his operations. Perhaps he is affected by a strike. Perhaps he has difficulty in obtaining materials.
If the local authority considers it expedient and considers that he will not complete his development within what it regards as a reasonable time, it may withdraw the planning permission. Having his planning permission withdrawn under Clause 57, the developer is then left with nothing. He cannot continue his operations, and he has paid a sum of money to the Land Commission.
It is the object of the new Clause to assist a person left in that position by giving the Land Commission a right to do something which it has no right to do at the moment, namely, to repay the levy which has been extracted from the developer who now finds that he cannot continue with his scheme because his planning permission has been withdrawn. This matter exercised the Standing Committee, and the Minister admitted that it created a problem. On 9th April— this is column 1000 of the OFFICIAL REPORT—he said that it seemed to be a legitimate case that should be dealt with. He added that it was being looked at, but it was extremely complex because of the complexity of the betterment levy conditions. We all know where the blame lies for that.
Because of the complexity, the Minister could not undertake to deal with the matter in this legislation, but he undertook that in due course new legislation would be forthcoming to deal with it. We do not accept that that is a satisfactory way of proceeding when the matter can be easily dealt with now. It can be dealt with now not by putting an obligation on the Land Commission to repay, but by giving it a discretion to repay. The wording of the new Clause is directed to that end.
10.30 p.m.
We suggest that the Land Commission should have the power to refund the entire amount of the levy, and that gives it the right to investigate all the circumstances of the withdrawal of planning permission land all the circumstances relating to the amount of development


that may have taken place, and still remains to continue. For example, if an estate of 300 houses has been half completed, the Land Commission may well take the view that part of the betterment levy should remain payable. There is no obligation on it to refund the whole of the levy. It is given a discretion to do so.
We hope that the Minister will unbend on this matter. There is no legal obstacle in the way, as far as we can see, to giving the Land Commission an absolute discretion and power to investigate to consider all circumstances and then, if it thinks it right and proper, to remit the levy which has been taken from a developer frustrated, possibly through causes outside his control, from continuing with his scheme.

Mr. MacDermot: I have already given an undertaking in Committee that this matter will be dealt with at the proper place. I do not think that this Bill is the proper place to introduce provisions about betterment levy. There is no urgency about this, for the simple reason that it will be some years before the first completion notice is served, and when one is served there will be at least 12 months, and perhaps more, during which the developer will be able to complete the development. It will only be after all that has transpired that a situation could arise where he would want to claim repayment in whole or in part of the levy he had paid. This is a matter to be brought forward in a Finance Bill. I have given an undertaking that we shall bring it forward.
The hon. Gentleman said that it is a simple Clause that can easily be introduced here. It is simple, but it is defective. It begins by saying:
Where a builder or developer has paid betterment levy …".
I do not see that it should be limited to such people. If the principle is right, it should be right for everyone. The Clause does not deal with cases where it would be right for only part of the levy to be refunded—it is all or nothing —nor with the position of successors in title. Perhaps that is enough to show that the matter is a little more complicated than hon. Members opposite have said.
As I have said, we have given an undertaking, and it will be implemented.

Mr. Rippon: That was an extraordinarily disappointing reply. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) put forward the new Clause very reasonably and moderately. It is drafted far more narrowly than the Amendments which were suggested in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg).
The Clause's purpose is very limited. It is to deal simply with the situation whereby a builder has paid betterment levy under Case C of the Land Commission Act, 1967 for material development of land on which he has begun work, and subsequently loses his planning permission because a completion notice has been served on him. The Minister indicated the justice of this in Committee, and my hon. Friend has quoted what he said then.
No one doubts for one moment that the Minister is right in talking about the complexity of the betterment levy conditions. He talked of the matter being extremely complex. No one differs from him about that. Now he says that there are many other anomalies which should be dealt with at the same time. However, we thought that we should be relatively modest and stick to the one he conceded required action.
The hon. and learned Gentleman says that this is not the proper place to do it. That was not one of his arguments in Committee. He said then that this was a very complex matter and that the Government must have plenty of time to consider. They have that time because the Land Commission has taken so long to get under way—and we also understand that. Now he says that the proper place to do this is in a Finance Bill.
Some of our colleagues have good reason to know that a Finance Bill is going on upstairs. We know that the Government are not anxious to have their legislation discussed to any great extent. At the same time, I do not see why they have not taken the opportunity to make this amendment to the law in the current Finance Bill upstairs. If the hon. and learned Gentleman undertook to do that, we might be satisfied, but


simply for him to say that the Government will do something in a Finance Bill some time in future is not satisfactory.
It is desirable that the Government give immediate effect to amendments to laws which they themselves have passed and which have been found wanting, and they should do it at the earliest opportunity. They now have such an opportunity and we shall press them to take it.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I intervene briefly because, having listened to the previous debate, I learnt with some dismay that assurances given by Ministers on the Bill are hardly worth the paper they are printed on. The hon. and learned Gentleman has just asked us to accept that, if he gives an undertaking that this matter will be taken care of, we can rest content. But in the light of the obvious going back on assurances so carefully enumerated by my hon. Friends in the previous debate, one can have little confidence in such undertakings. If the Government go back on undertakings in one Clause they must not expect to be believed when they give further undertakings on another.
My concern is that local authorities are to be given, under Clause 57, considerable powers. Surely that business of developing sites has enough risks without adding to them the risk that a man can lose his planning permission because, through no fault of his own, he has suffered delays in construction.
A developer may be subject to delays by three possible causes—acts of God, acts of men, and acts of this Government. I can visualise a developer faced by inclement weather. I remember working on a building site during the winter of 1958. The weather became extremely harsh and we were delayed through no fault of our own. It is disturbing to feel that a man's planning permission can disappear because of an act of God in bringing harsh weather.
Then there is the possibility of acts of men delaying completion of the building. For example, such things as withdrawal of labour through inter-union disputes could cause delay through no fault of the developer. Yet he is to be subject to the loss of his building permission and may well find himself with a half-completed structure which he cannot sell and which he might not even

be allowed to demolish, but on which he will, nevertheless, have given up a substantial portion of his own funds in order to pay the development charge. Surely this must be quite clear to Ministers as being hopelessly unfair.
Then, too, I mentioned possible delays arising out of acts of the Government. We have recently seen the impact of the squeeze on the building industry. Surely, this has produced more delays in development than anything for a very long time. Is it to be contemplated that a developer shall lose substantial sums of money because, through no fault of his own, the whole momentum of building is held up by a credit squeeze, by a new Bill pushed through this House, and over which he can have no possible control and which he could not possibly have foreseen?
As my hon. Friend pointed out to me a little while ago, as a result of an act of the Government a developer might find himself with a load of bricks 101 miles away from the site, and possibly, under the Transport Bill, if it is passed, the road haulage contractor would not be able to get a licence to bring those bricks to the site. So, once again, there would be delay arising out of acts of the Government. It seems to me that the possibilities of delay are so great, unfortunately, that to leave a developer in a situation where he might be caused serious losses through no fault of his own, and not to accept the simple and straightforward Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend, is to do an injustice, and that it will not help with this Bill, as I am sure, both sides of the House wish.
The Minister picked one or two technical holes in my hon. Friend's Amendment. He said it did not catch all categories of persons concerned. This may be, but I remind him of the point I made at the beginning, that since his assurances on a previous Clause, assurances given, as far as I know, solemnly to hon. Members of the Committee, have not been implemented, since those assurances have fallen to the ground, it is really very difficult for this side of the House to accept a new group of assurances given at this time. I, for one, would be more than happy if he would reconsider his reply to my hon. Friend, but if he is not willing to do that I certainly hope my hon. Friends will indicate their views in the Division Lobby.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: For my part, I am perfectly prepared to accept the undertakings of my hon. and learned Friend, the more so having regard to the fact that, as he pointed out, the proposed Clause would not cure the evil which is complained about and which is recognised as being one which ought to be cured.
I rise, therefore, only to ask my hon. and learned Friend whether any further legislation is really necessary in dealing with this matter. As I understand the position, under Case C betterment levy is charged having regard to the value of the planning permission which is granted; the calculation, normally speaking, is based upon the value of the land in the light of the planning permission.
Under Clause 57 (4) the original planning permission is invalid except in so far as it authorises development carried out up to the date specified in the completion notice. It follows that there is substituted for the original planning permission a different planning permission, and, in many cases, a substantially less value. It follows from that that the betterment levy has been charged upon the basis of a planning permission other than that which the developer will have if this procedure goes through. In these circumstances, is it necessary to have any special legislation to enable the developer to recoup the extra amount of levy which he has paid over and above that which he would have paid if, in the first place, he had had the planning permission as it will not become?

Mr. MacDermot: The short point is, as I explained in Committee, that, where a builder is levied on commencing operations, he is levied on the assumption that he will complete those operations. If that assumption is falsified in the event, it seems to be right that he should be able to reclaim pro tanto the levy that he has paid.

Mr. Graham Page: That is not clear in the Bill before us. The hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) put forward a very ingenious argument that further legislation might not be necessary. It is doubtful whether that argument would hold water, with

great respect to him. I would much rather see specifically stated in the Statute that the Land Commission has power to return the levy.
The point I really wanted to make was this. The Minister said, first, that the Bill was not the proper place for this Clause and, secondly, there was no urgency. Surely, when the law is altered to the detriment of the citizen, the proper place to put it right is in the Bill and not in a later Bill. According to the Long Title of the Bill, betterment levy can be dealt with, and it ought to be dealt with when the law is changed in this way.
With regard to the point about no urgency, Clause 57 is what new Clause 13 deals with, because it deals with completion notices. Clause 57 reads:
… planning permission for development is granted or deemed to be granted subject to a condition …
Any existing planning permission is to be deemed to be granted subject to a condition that it expires at a certain future date, and that comes in Clause 54(1).
Immediately the Bill becomes law, existing planning permissions are subject to a condition, and they come under Clause 57. Work being undertaken under those planning permissions becomes subject to a completion notice immediately the Bill becomes law. The completion notice cannot take effect for twelve months, but that is a possible 12 months from the day on which the Bill receives the Royal Assent; so there is urgency. It must be included in an Act of Parliament if it is to be corrected within that period of time.
It might be squeezed into the next Finance Bill, but I am not prepared to rely on the Minister, even with the best will in the world, to get a Clause into a perhaps overcrowded Finance Bill and into law in July, 1969. This is the soonest date that he can give us when this might become law, and even that is not guaranteed in the undertaking which he has given.
The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot say that there is no urgency about it. There is urgency when there is a possibility of it taking effect within the next 12 months. Therefore, I press for its inclusion in the Bill.

Mr. MacDermot: I would like to look at the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made. If it is well founded, I will see what can be done.

Division No. 150.]
AYES
[10.50 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Foster, Sir John
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Goodhew, Victor
Pym, Francis


Astor, John
Grant, Anthony
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bessell, Peter
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn, Sir Peter


Biffen, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Biggs-Davison, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Boardman, Tom
Holland, Philip
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hordern, Peter
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Brewis, John
Iremonger, T. L.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Scott, Nicholas


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sharpies, Richard


Buck, Antony (Cotchester)
Kirk, Peter
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Burden, F. A
Kitson, Timothy
Silvester, Frederick


Cary, Sir Robert
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Channon, H. P. G.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Speed, Keith


Clark, Henry
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stainton, Keith


Clegg, Walter
Lubbock, Eric
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Cooke, Robert
Maude, Angus
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Costain, A. P,
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Crouch, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Temple, John M.


Currie, G. B. H.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C
Tilney, John


Dance, James
Monro, Hector
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


d'Avigdor-Coldsmid, Sir Henry
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) 
Murton, Oscar
Ward, Dame Irene


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Onslow, Cranley
Webster, David


Eden, Sir John
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Pardoe, John
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Emery, Peter
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Wright, Esmond


Errington, Sir Eric
Percival, Ian



Eyre, Reginald
Peyton, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Farr, John
Pink, R. Bonner
Mr. Jasper More and


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Pounder, Rafton
Mr. Humphrey Atkins.




NOES


Allen, Scholefield
English, Michael
Lawson, George


Armstrong, Ernest
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yard-ley)
 Leadbitter, Ted


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Femyhough, E.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Bagier, Cordon A. T.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Loughlin, Charles


Bamett, Joel
Fowler, Gerry
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Beaney, Alan
Fraser, John (Norwood)
MacDermot, Niall


Bidwell, Sydney
Freeson, Reginald
Macdonald, A. H.


Blackburn, F.
Galpem, Sir Myer
Mackenzie, Cregor (Rutherglen)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gardner, Tony
Mackintosh, John P.


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Garrett, W. E.
McNamara, J. Kevin


Boyden, James
Courlay, Harry
MacPherson, Malcolm


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Gregory, Arnold
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mapp, Charles


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Griffiths, David (Rather Valley)
Marks, Kenneth


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marojuand, David


Buchan, Norman
Hamling, William
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hannan, William
Mendelson, J. J.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Harper, Joseph
Millan, Bruce


Carmichael, Neil
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Coe, Denis
Haseldine, Norman
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Henig, Stanley
Moyle, Roland


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Newens, Stan


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hooley, Frank
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Homer, John
Norwood, Christopher


Dell, Edmund
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Ogden, Eric


Dempsey, James
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
O'Malley, Brian


Dewar, Donald
Hoy, James
Orbach, Maurice


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Huckfield, Leslie
Orme, Stanley



Dickens, James
Hynd, John
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Doig, Peter
Irvine, Sir Arthur
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Durmett, Jack
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Paget, R. T.


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Park, Trevor


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) 
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Eadie, Alex
Kelley, Richard
Pavitt, Laurence


Ellis, John
Kenyon, Clifford
Pentland, Norman

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 101, Noes 146.

Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Slater, Joseph
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Snow, Julian
Whitlock, William


Price, William (Rugby)
Sprigge, Leslie
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Roberts, Cwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth'stow,E.)
Swingler, Stephen
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Roebuck, Roy
Taverne, Dick
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Rose, Paul
Thornton, Ernest
Winnick, David


Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Tinn, James
Woodbum, Rt. Hn. A.


Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)
Urwin, T. w.
Woof, Robert


Sheldon, Robert
Wainwright, Edwin (Deame Valley)
Yates, Victor


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Walden, Brian (AH Saints)



Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Walker, Harold (Dorvcaster)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Silverman,' Julius (Aston)
Wallace, George
Mr, Concaonon and


Skeffington, Arthur
Watkins, David (Consett)
Mr. Ernest Perry.

New Clause 14.

VALIDATION OF CONDITIONAL OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSIONS.

An outline planning permission granted before the commencement of this Act shall not be held to be invalid by reason only that it was granted upon condition that it would cease to have effect if approval of matters not particularised in the application had not been given within a specified time.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
A decision of the courts recently has thrown into chaos a large number of planning permissions, and this Clause seeks to try to put right the law on this subject. The Clause seeks to validate planning permissions which have been granted upon condition that they would cease to have effect if the details of an outline planning permission had not received approval by the local planning authority before a certain date.
The problem arises out of the case of Kingsbury Investment (Kent) Ltd. v. the Kent County Council, in which the council granted outline planning permission in 1952. The permission had attached to it a condition that it should cease to have effect if approval of the details of the application had not been notified within three years. This type of condition is a little unusual except, I believe, in Kent. Normally, the permission would be granted on condition that the details were submitted to the local planning authority within a certain period, but in this case the condition was that approval must be notified by the council to the applicant on his outline planning permission within three years.
That was granted in 1952, but the time was extended by letter and agreement between the parties over some years, but the council eventually refused to

extend the permission beyond September, 1962. The applicant then applied to the court for a declaration that the condition in the permission was invalid, on the grounds that it did not give them time to appeal from that condition. If the permission became invalid at the end of three years because the local planning authority had not approved the details, that could cut off the right of appeal at that moment.
The applicant succeeded in convincing the court that the condition was invalid and the court so held, but the court also held that the permission was inseparable from the condition and that, therefore, the permission itself was invalid. So the unfortunate applicants, having applied to the court for removal of the condition from their permission, had the permission itself removed.
I understand that the Kent County Council, and perhaps others, have used this form of outline planning permission since 1950, on the grounds of a circular from the Ministry advising that this sort of condition could be attached to permissions and outline permissions granted on the basis that it would cease to have effect if the approval of the details were not granted by the local planning authority within a period of years—in this case, three. So there must be thousands of planning permissions issued on this basis which are invalid. Many of them will have been completed, and no one will question their validity now, but there are probably many applicants holding plannning permisisons of this sort who will not have read the Law Reports and will think that they are valid. If they develop, the county council may not serve an enforcement notice, will accept the development, and that will be that, and no one will worry any more.
But the real problem is that, if these planning permissions are invalid, there


has been a withdrawal of planning permission by a court decision. It may be that Kent County Council or other county councils will be grateful for the court's action in withdrawing planning permission, in other words, revoking planning permission without compensation. This may be used by local planning authorities as revocation of planning permissions which were thought to be valid without having to pay any compensation. That is a real danger. After all, however unfair it may seem that a public authority should take advantage in that way a public authority is the trustee for all its citizens, and it must act according to the law, and for their best benefit, and if it is for the benefit of all the citizens in its area that a planning permission should be treated as invalid and revoked, it should do so, regardless of what seems unfair to the individual.
If the law is on the side of the public authority, it should not act to the detriment of the majority of its citizens, so it would be quite right for any county council to take advantage of this legal decision to the detriment of individual applicants. This is a stage at which Parliament should step in and put the law right. It may be that it has to be put right in a retrospective fashion, by saying that what the law has now found to be illegal planning permissions should be made legal, but it is surely the right thing to do. It should not be left in this chaotic state.
We cannot leave a number of developers holding planning permissions they think are valid, and then, when they submit details of what they want to do on their outline planning permissions, they are told that the permissions have been revoked, not by the county council, but by decisions of the courts.
This Clause is an effort to put right a mistake in the law which will leave a chaotic situation, unless it is put right.

Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Gentleman has done a service in drawing attention to this decision and the difficulties to which he has referred. I can see that there is force in his argument, that it

Division No. 151.]
AYES
[11.9 p.m.


Allen, Scholefield
Bagier, Cordon A. T.
Blackburn, F.


Armstrong, Ernest
Barnett, Joel
Blenkinsop, Arthur


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Beaney, Alan
Boardman, H. (Leigh)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Bidwell, Sydney
Boyden, James

would be wrong that developers should lose the benefit of their outline planning permissions merely because of the defect in the condition, but equally, on the other hand, it does not follow from that that they should have the benefit of such permission without the condition. That would be the effect of his new Clause. But it is a complicated and difficult matter and we should all benefit from an opportunity to sleep on it. So, partly for that reason, and partly for others, I beg to move,
That the proceedings of this day's Sitting be suspended.

Mr. Rippon: On a point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I am required to put the Motion that is moved forthwith.

Mr. Rippon: May I put a question afterwards?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must put the Question to the House. I am bound by the Standing Order.

Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [12th December] (Sittings of the House): —

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Rippon: (seated and covered): On a point of order. In view of what I said at the opening of the debate earlier today, is the House to be afforded no protection whatever by the Chair against the quite arbitrary, dictatorial, bloody-minded way in which Parliament is being treated, with the Government, in handling the business of the House, interfering with the proper processes of our business and holding up a vital discussion on an important Bill when 52 pages of new Clauses and Amendments have been laid before us?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must inform the right hon. and learned Gentleman that that is not a point of order. The Chair must apply the Standing Orders, which it is doing.

The House divided: Ayes 145, Noes 100.

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Horner, John
Pentland, Norman


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hoy, James
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Buchan, Norman
Huckfield, Leslie
Price, William (Rugby)


Buchanan, Richard (C'gow, Sp'burn)
Hynd, John
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Carmichael, Neil
Irvine, Sir Arthur
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow,E.)


Coe, Denis
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Roebuck, Roy


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rose, Paul


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Kelley, Richard
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kenyon, Clifford
Sheldon, Robert


Dell, Edmund
Lawson, George
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dempsey, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Dewar, Donald
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Skeffington, Arthur


Dickens, James
Loughlin, Charles
Slater, Joseph


Doig, Peter
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Snow, Julian


Dunnett, Jack
MacDermot, Niall
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Macdonald, A. H.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Dun woody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergien)
Swingler, Stephen


Eadie, Alex
Mackintosh, John P.
Taverne, Dick


Ellis, John
McNamara, J. Kevin
Thornton, Ernest


English, Michael
MacPherson, Malcolm
Tinn, James


Ennals, David
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Urwin, T. w.


Fernyhough, E.
Mapp, Charles
Varley, Eric G.


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Marks, Kenneth
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marquand, David
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Fowler, Gerry
Mendelson, J. J.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Millan, Bruce
Wallace, George


Freeson, Reginald
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Garrett, W. E.
Molloy, William
Whitlock, William


Gourlay, Harry
Newens, Stan
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Gregory, Arnold
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby,S.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Norwood, Christopher
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Ogden, Eric
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
O'Malley, Brian
Winnick, David


Hamling, William
Orbach, Maurice
Woodburn, Rt Hn A.


Hannan, William
Orme, Stanley
Woof, Robert


Harper, Joseph
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Yates, Victor


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)



Haseidine, Norman
Paget, R. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Henig, Stanley
Park, Trevor
Mr. Concannon and


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Mr. Ioan L. Evans


Hooley, Frank
Pavitt, Laurence





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Goodhew, Victor
Pym, Francis


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Grant, Anthony
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Astor, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Ren ton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bessell, Peter
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Biffen, John
Holland, Philip
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Biggs-Davison, John
Hordern, Peter
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Boardman, Tom
Iremonger, T. L.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Brewis, John
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Scott, Nicholas


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sharples, Richard


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Kershaw, Anthony
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Kirk, Peter
Silvester, Frederick


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Kitson, Timothy
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Burden, F. A.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Speed, Keith


Cary, Sir Robert
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stainton Keith


Channon, H. P. G.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor,Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Clark, Henry
Lubbock, Eric
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)


Clegg, Walter
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Cooke, Robert
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Temple John M


Costain, A. P.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Tilney John


Crouch, David
More, Jasper
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Currie, G. B. H.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Dance, James
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Murton, Oscar
Ward, Dame Irene


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Onslow, Cranley
Webster, David


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn, William


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Pardoe, John
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Eden, Sir John
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Wright, Esmond


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Percival, Ian



Emery, Peter
Peyton, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Farr, John
Pink, R. Bonner
Mr. Hector Monroe and


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Pounder, Rafton
Mr. Reginald Eyre.


Foster, Sir John
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Orders of the Day — CHANNEL TUNNEL (TERMINUS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Concannon.]

11.18 p.m.

Mr. A. P. Costain: I am grateful for the opportunity of drawing attention to the need for a decision on the actual location of the English terminus of the Channel Tunnel. The House will appreciate that it is nine years since it was announced that there was a probability that the Channel Tunnel would at last be constructed, for as long ago as 1961 the British and French Ministers of Transport set up a working party of British and French officials to report on two specific proposals from private interests for a fixed Channel crossing and to establish how far they showed promise of financial viability.
It will be readily appreciated that the construction of a tunnel would have a profound effect upon the Borough of Folkestone in general and the harbour in particular. In recent years there has been a dramatic increase in passenger traffic through the harbour, and even in 1959 the lack of Customs and immigration facilities created a serious problem.
British Railways are the owners of the harbour and any pressure which the borough council and I have put upon them to make improvements has always been countered by the fact that if the Channel Tunnel was to be built, these facilities would not be required. It is ironical that in the year when it looks as though a decision to build the Channel Tunnel might be made, at least limited improvements to the harbour itself have been carried out, although the final plans for the surrounding development still leave much to be desired. Now that we have the assurance of the Government that the Channel Tunnel will be built, other uses for the harbour are being considered, but if I were to expound on these proposals I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would rule me out of order.
The purpose of this debate is to draw attention to the fact that the Government's indecision, or their reluctance to announce their decision, on the site of

the terminus installation of the tunnel is having a serious effect upon the development of the Borough of Folkestone.
For some years now it has been assumed—more by rumour and conjecture than anything else—that the portal of the Tunnel would be on the westerly side of Sugar Loaf Hill, but the actual offloading points for motor cars and passengers would be in the vicinity of Sellindge, which is approximately halfway between Ashford and Folkestone. Indeed, the recent Buchanan Report on the development of Ashford stated that the Channel Tunnel station would be on the eastern side of Sellindge, which gave credence to these rumours. There was considerable consternation lest these installations would be sited on the Folkestone racecourse, thus depriving the borough of an important amenity. From the information that has now reached me, however, I am led to believe that this assumption is incorrect, and the promoters are working on the assumption that the railway loading points will be immediately adjacent to the Tunnel portal.
As this could be within the town area of Folkestone, the failure to get a decision is seriously hampering the development plans. As an example, the Ministry of Transport has only recently agreed to what is virtually a bypass of Folkestone station as part of the A20 at Folkestone along Churchill Avenue. As this improvement has been so long delayed, the borough is naturally anxious to proceed with this road construction, but if the passenger vehicle station is to be sited in the proximity it may well be necessary for this road to be widened or realigned.
It is also necessary for a firm decision to be made as to where the marshalling yards for the goods wagons is likely to be. The borough of Folkestone is very anxious that this should not be adjoining the built-up area for, while there is a plausible argument for placing a passenger station as close as possible to the portal of the tunnel and also giving access for passengers to use the facilities of the town, there would seem less of an argument for the marshalling yard to be constructed in this area. Indeed, there seems to be little purpose in building a marshalling yard immediately


adjacent to the station, and I should have thought—from my experience as an engineer who has built railways and marshalling yards in the past—that there was a stronger case for this to be located nearer to a main line junction.
I should also make mention of the fact that the link between the Tunnel and the main Folkestone to London line will, of necessity, have to cross land which is under consideration for development, and equally I should point out that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has designated this area as one of outstanding natural beauty.
At the moment, I have dealt only with the need for a decision on the location of sites for the permanent structure, but I hope that the Minister will appreciate that the actual siting of the offices and workshops of the tunnel builders is of vital importance. I suggested, when the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) was Minister of Transport, that his Ministry should take the opportunity of acquiring the Hawkinge Airfield, which was up for disposal, and I understood that this suggestion had been accepted by him. Subsequently, however, the major part of this land was disposed of, and this excellent opportunity has been lost by the delay in arriving at a decision on this matter. Those of us who have been working closely with Government Departments for a number of years know only too well how opportunities are lost and public money wasted because of a Department's inability to give precise decisions.
The need for a decision on the Channel Tunnel affects not only Folkestone but, quite naturally, adjoining towns, and I am delighted to see present my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). I have no doubt that if time is available they will be able to explain how the actual location of the Tunnel will affect the road pattern in their constituencies. In order to make time available, therefore, I would conclude by saying that those who are familiar with the town planning of Folkestone will realise that by careful planning which has evolved over the past hundred years

a town has been designed to maintain a proper geographical balance between residential, commercial and industrial siting, a town which in common with the best seaside resorts, has a carefully prepared distribution of parks and sports amenities which are the envy of many.
Because of the changes which the Channel Tunnel will impose upon the labour requirements at the harbour, the proposed closure of the local Mackeson Brewery, and the Small Arms School at Hythe, and the Government's deliberate policy of dissuading industry from coming into the South-East, we face in Folkestone in the near future a serious problem with the rapid increase in unemployment.
We therefore welcome this new hope for employment opportunities. We realise, however, that the siting of the Channel Tunnel termini is governed more by geographical contours than by any man-made plan. The borough is therefore anxious that its future plans should be designed to accommodate these new developments. This can be done only if we are given the key facts which must dominate our planning proposals. For this reason I consider we are entitled to information. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary is tonight prepared to give this to enable us to plan economically and wisely.
I have noted that since I asked for this Adjournment debate the Minister of Transport—on 14th May—made reference to a planning council being responsible for the planning of the United Kingdom terminals. I should have thought that enough was now known about the general line of the tunnel to enable the two Governments, in consultation with the railway and local authorities, to get the approximate location of the terminals. I hope that in reply the Parliamentary Secretary will not evade the issue by saying that it is being carefully considered by the planning council. If he cannot announce a decision now, can he give the date when he expects a decision to be made?
If he cannot tell us the definition location of the terminal, can he assure us that it will not be on Folkestone Racecourse? If he cannot tell us where it will be, can he tell us where it will not be? I hope that if they are fortunate in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, my


hon. Friends will raise the question of the roads leading to the terminal.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I am glad to support my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) in his plea to the Government for more information about this enormously important project. Over the months during which we have known that a great dual has been going on, the Government have shown some lack of candour over this project which is of first importance to the economy of the country and will have an enormous impact in this region.
In some respects I appreciate the Government's reluctance to give news about the exits of the tunnel, but to give more news about the project generally and to submit the subject to public debate would ventilate the misgiving a number of people feel as to whether in the changed circumstances the project should run at all. I see the attractions which the Channel Tunnel has for the Government. In part they are political. The tunnel would have the effect of giving rail a substantial advantage over road, indeed the tunnel railway would have a monopoly. That would be in keeping with the Transport Bill and other matters.
What I question is whether, in the absence of other evidence, those are sufficiently good grounds for going ahead without further discussion of what new circumstances lie behind the project. It bears stressing that this Government have made no official case for the Channel Tunnel. The sole public justification is the Joint Report of British and French officials in September 1963—five years ago. There has been no revised estimate made available as to the cost and no revised estimate as to the traffic which might be expected. Are we to understand that, between 1963 and 1968 there has been no change in any of these circumstances?
What I fear—particularly in view of what my hon. Friend said about the exit from the tunnel and the impact on the region—is that when the plans are known, especially about the road structure required, there will be a degree of public outcry. Then we shall be told that it is too late to make a protest, as with the Stansted project. This brooks no delay. We are entitled to know more about what

the Government have in mind, what their case is for this costly project. For that reason I warmly welcome the initiative of my hon. Friend in raising this matter tonight.

11.29 p.m.

Mr. David Crouch: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) in what they have said about the need for a public debate on the whole concept of the Channel Tunnel. As my right hon. Friend said, this is an enormously important decision involving very large factors in our whole transport strategy, rail and road. The House must have time to consider the matter now as one of urgency. We are left in the air and we do not know what the Government intend.
From the point of view of my constituency, there is one factor of particular importance. At present, the motorway from London which has virtually replaced the old London-Dover road, the M2 motorway, ends in an orchard about seven miles north of Canterbury. This is hardly the way to take the tourist and freight traffic to Dover, Britain's busiest port today. The Government will be forced to say—I hate to put words into the Parliamentary Secretary's mouth —that the decision on ending the motorway where it is now and not to continue it is held up by a failure to make a decision on whether to proceed with the Channel Tunnel. When they can say whether they will go ahead or not go ahead with the Channel Tunnel, they will be able to say what their stategy for road planning in relation to the new entrance and the Channel crossing will be.
Until we know whether the tunnel is to proceed, we shall have no extension to the M2. Thus, we shall see a continuation of the terrible congestion of traffic leading off the excellent M2 into the very narrow A2 road running into the old City of Canterbury. This in itself is a matter of high urgency. It would be out of order in this debate to discuss the need to by-pass our prime cathedral City, but that need is plain for all to see. I hope that the Minister will bear it in mind as one of the elements to be considered in the whole question of the road strategy for the South-East.

11.32 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Neil Carmichael): I am sure that hon. Gentlemen will realise that, although I fully appreciate their worries in connection with the wider question of whether there should be a Channel Tunnel, this debate is about the terminal of the tunnel. The question of principle regarding the Channel Tunnel will be decided only when the House has debated the matter in full. Hon. Members will be aware that next week may afford a further opportunity to discuss some of the preliminary machinery involved and certain other facts required before a decision one way or the other can be taken on whether there should be a Channel Tunnel. We are not in this debate at liberty to discuss the merits one way or the other of the principle of whether there should be a Channel Tunnel.
However, I welcome this opportunity to let the House know more about the terminal facilities likely to be needed for the Channel Tunnel, their possible location, and the machinery for consultation and decision. My right hon. Friend is as anxious as the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) and his right hon. and hon. Friends that the facts should be known and that there should be a proper opportunity for public discussion and for taking into account the views of local and regional interests before final decisions are reached in this matter.
The trouble with early notice in cases of this kind is that, while some people think it gives the public plenty of time for constructive discussion of proposals at the formative stage, others look upon it as scaremongering publicity for half-baked ideas and as liable to cause needless local anxieties.
It is a question of striking the right balance. My right hon. Friend believes, and so do I, that in this particular case it is better to make the facts known sooner rather than later.
But first we must be clear about what these facts are. It may help hon. Members to see the problem clearly if I briefly describe the arrangements covering the project as a whole, because these establish the field for decision on the terminals.
The British and French Governments agreed in 1966 that the tunnel should be financed by a company in the private sector, which would also manage the construction; but that the completed tunnel should be handed over to an Anglo-French public authority which would run it. Our first task is, therefore, to choose a private group which will finance the tunnel and arrange for its construction on mutually acceptable terms. We hope that it will soon be possible to make that choice.
The Governments will then agree, with the chosen financing group, the basis for carrying out the final phase of studies needed before we can go ahead. Hon. Members will know that we are currently seeking powers to set up a Channel Tunnel Planning Council to act as the forerunner of the public operating authority during this phase and to work in parallel with a study company to be set up by the financing group. This study phase will be carried out under the supervision of the Governments. It will no doubt include work on the detailed design and location of the terminal facilities. But I must make it quite clear that the commitment to the Study phase is not commitment to the Tunnel. There can be no final commitment to the project, or to the exact terminal requirement, until Parliament has been asked for and given its consent to construction of the tunnel.
Before Parliament can authorise construction, or approve the proposed terminal requirements, an Anglo-French treaty must be drafted setting out the constitution of the joint public operating authority, agreeing on the line of the tunnel and regulating the relationship between the public authority and the construction company. Full legislation will have to be introduced in this country at that time to allow the provisions of the treaty to be implemented and, in particular, to give any powers that may be needed to acquire land compulsorily for the terminals.
It should be clear, from what I have said, that there is no question of determining the site of the tunnel terminal in the final, legal sense, until Parliament itself has passed the enabling legislation for the tunnel. This makes it equally clear that it is impossible to do as the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe


asked and say where it will not be. It is just as difficult to say one thing as the other, because we are dealing with land where people may be blighted because of difficulties of making decisions one way or the other. Until legislation is passed, we can talk in terms of proposals, but not of an authorised project.
So I must make it perfectly clear that any infoimation about terminal sites released at an early stage, long before the presentation of an enabling Bill, can only take the form of provisional proposals. It would have the great advantage of giving an opportunity for public opinion to be heard well in advance; but it could cause uncertainty and perhaps hardship to some property owners who will know that their land might be wanted and who might be unable to sell it at a reasonable price in the ordinary way, if they wanted to leave their location.
That is why there is a Clause in the Transport Bill to enable my right hon. Friend to buy, by agreement, land which is likely to be required for the Tunnel. When that becomes law, my right hon. Friend will have discretion to buy land at the request of owners who might otherwise suffer hardship.
So much for the context in which the planning of the terminals must be carried out. I come now to what is being done in that context by the Ministry of Transport, to prepare the ground for the study period. I can say already that whether the undersea section is a bored tunnel or an immersed tube, it is almost certain that for engineering and geological reasons, the tunnel will surface somewhere in the escarpment of the North Downs to the north of Folkestone. It is also clear that, for practical reasons, the bulk of the tunnel traffic must join either the existing main railway line between Ash-ford and Folkestone or the A.20 road route. These are the arteries through which the tunnel will link the railway and road networks on both sides of the Channel and will enable freight to move deep into Europe direct from our manufacturing areas whether in Scotland, Wales, the North, the Midlands or the South. Much of the A.20, west of Maidstone, has already been improved to a high standard. Schemes which would provide for the improvement of the remainder of this route between the

Channel Tunnel terminal and the London area are already programmed or included in the announced preparation pool. These schemes will be completed by the time the tunnel opens.
These two factors, the siting of the portal, and the junctions with the main railway and road, have the effect of limiting the possible terminal sites to the general area between Ashford and Folkestone.
The main facility to be provided is a road vehicle ferry terminal for private cars and commercial vehicles, which will be driving on to the trains at one terminal and off at the other. The choice of the best site in this area of Kent is not easy, particularly when stringent railway operating requirements have to be met. The countryside is hilly, fairly densely populated, and, in parts, of high amenity value. The terminal site has, moreover, to be located close to the main line railway and to the improvement or relief of the A20.
The choice has to strike the best balance between operating, economic, and general planning and amenity considerations. We also have to allow for other possible requirements such as terminal and interchange facilities for railway passengers and railway freight. Much the same considerations would apply to these.
In order to prepare the ground for the final studies, which will begin when the study company and the Planning Council are set up, the Ministry of Transport have already arranged an aerial survey. Also, to ensure feasibility from an engineering point of view, a number of specific studies—for example, geological and soil surveys—are in hand to establish the most suitable line of the tunnel approach railway. This factor is likely to have considerable bearing on the final choice of sites suitable for the various terminal facilities.
Extensive studies, consultations and soundings have been and are still in progress with officers of the major interested parties. Apart from other Government Departments, these include British Railways, the Kent County Council, and other local authorities and statutory undertakings. The South-East Economic Planning Council has also been kept informed.
These consultations have not yet been completed, and are still at the confidential stage. We have to be reasonably confident, before making any proposals public, even on a provisional basis, that they are sound from an engineering point of view and meet the operational and general planning requirements.
Once the consultations have been satisfactorily concluded at an official level, it is my right hon. Friend's intention to consult formally with the various local authorities concerned, who will at this stage be able to discuss the proposals, in the light of all the operational, economic, and planning considerations which have so far emerged, and to make their views known in plenty of time for them to be taken fully into account.
I hope that we shall be ready to consult local authorities in this way within the next few months. At that moment, it is my right hon. Friend's intention, again in consultation with those authorities, to make jointly acceptable arrangements for publication, in a suitable form and at a suitable time, of information on the pro-

posals under consideration—always bearing in mind, as I have said, that they will be strictly provisional and subject in due course to the approval of Parliament.
I have now sketched out the general area in which we are interested, as well as the factors which at present limit an announcement about the terminal site. I have also indicated the various steps we are taking to make our planning public at the earliest opportunity while guarding against any possibility of hardship.
I hope, as I have said, that it may not be too long before we can publish. But the studies are complex and I am sure hon. Members will understand that It is not open to me today to name a precise date for publication.

The debate having been concluded, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER suspended the sitting of the House at a quarter to Twelve o'clock till Ten o'clock Tomorrow pursuant to Order.